THE  WAR  OF 
DEMOCRACY 

THE  ALLIES'  STATEMENT 


Chapters  on  the  Fundamental  Significance  of 
the  Struggle  for  a  New  Europe,  Prepared  by 

RT.  HON.VISCOUNT  BRYCE,  O.  M.  RT.  HON.  D.  LLOYD  GEORGE 

EDWARD  PRICE  BELL  PROF.  A.  A.  H.  STRUYCKEN 

M.  PAUL  HYMANS  H.  A.  L.  FISHER,  F.  B.  A. 

PROF.  GILBERT  MURRAY  M.  HENRI  HAUSER 

RT.HON.ARTHUR  J.BALFOUR.M.P.  RT.  HON.  H.  H.  ASQUITH 

M.  PAUL  ALBERT  HELMER  RT.  HON.VISCOUNT  GREY  OF  FALLODON 

G.  M.  TREVELYAN  M.  MAURICE  BARRES 


'With  firmness  in  the  Right,  as  God  gives  us  to  see  the  Right." 

—ABRAHAM  LINCOLN 


GARDEN  CITY  NEW  YORK 

DOUBLEDAY,  PAGE  &  COMPANY 

1917 


Copyright,  1917,  by 

DOTJBLEDAY,    PAGE    &    COMPANY 

Att  rights  reserved,  including  tJiat  of 

translation  into  foreign  languages, 

including  the  Scandinavian 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Introduction ix 

By  the  Right  Hon.  Viscount  Bryce,  O.M. 

I.     The  War  of  Democracy.     Lord  Haldane 

States  Britain's  Case 1 

By  Edward  Price  Bell 

II.     Neutral  Nations  and  the  War       ...       19 
By  Viscount  James  Bryce 

III.  A  Free  Europe.     Being  an  Interview  with 

the    Rt.    Hon.    Sir    Edward    Grey, 

Bart,K.G 39 

By  Edward  Price  Bell 

IV.  The    Violation    of    the    Neutrality    of 

Belgium.     With  a  Preface      ...       53 
By  M.  Paul  Hymans 

V.    The   Attitude  of   Great  Britain  in  the 

Present  War 89 

By  Viscount  James  Bryce 

VI.     Ethical  Problems  of  the  War  .     .     .     .     115 

By  Professor  Gilbert  Murray 

VII.    The  Freedom  of  the  Seas 135 

Interview  Given  by  the  Rt.  Hon.  Arthur  J. 
Balfour,  M.P. 

VIII.    Alsace  Under  German  Rule     .     .     .     .     145 
By  M.  Paul  Albert  Helmer 


IX. 
X. 

XL 
XII. 

xm. 

XIV. 

xv. 

XVI. 

XVII. 
XVIII. 


CONTENTS 

The  Servians  and  Austria      .... 
By  G.  M.  Trevelyan 

Why  the  Allies  Will  Win.     An  Interview 
with  the  Rt.  Hon.  D.  Lloyd  George, 
Minister  of  Munitions    .... 
By  the  Editor  of  the  Secolo  of  Milan 

The  German  White  Book  on  the  War 

In  Belgium 

By  Professor  A.  A.  H.  Struycken 

The  Value  of  Small  States     .... 
By  H.  A.  L.  Fisher,  F.B.A. 

Thoughts  on  the  War 

By  Professor  Gilbert  Murray 


Economic  Germany 
By  M.  Henri  Hauser. 
Matheson 


Translated  by  P.  E. 


(a)  The  Navy  and  the  War.     (Letter  to 

Mr.  Tuohy)    .< 

(b)  Fruits  of  the  Battle  of  Jutland  .      . 
By  the  Rt.  Hon.  Arthur  J.  Balfour,  M.P. 

Great     Britain's     Measures      Against 
German  Trade 

AJ>peech   Delivered   by  the  Rt.   Hon.   Sir 
Iward  Grey. 


What  Britain  is  Fighting  For.     A  Reply 

to  the  German  Chancellor  . 
A  Speech  by  the  Rt.  Hon.  H.  H.  Asquith 

Why  Britain  is  in  the  War  and  What 
She  Hopes  from  the  Future 

A  Speech  by  the  Rt.  Hon.  Viscount  Grey  of 
Fallodon 


PACK 

179 


191 


243 


291 


317 
332 


339 


365 


375 


CONTENTS  vii 

PAGE 

XIX.     The  Death  of  Edith  Cavell   .      .      .      .391 

XX.     The  Soul  of  France 427 

By  M.  Maurice  Barres 

XXI.  A  German  Naval  Victory :  The  Lusitania 
Medal — with  inscriptions  and  ex- 
planations   441 


INTRODUCTION 
By  the  Right  Hon.  Viscount  Bryce,  O.M. 

The  pamphlets  and  articles  contained  in  this  collec- 
tion fall  into  two  classes.  Some  of  them  are  intended 
to  elucidate  particular  questions  which  have  arisen 
in  the  course  of  the  present  war.  Those  of  the  other 
and  larger  class  deal  with  more  general  matters,  and 
investigate  the  causes  of  the  war  and  the  general  issues 
of  principle  and  practice  which  it  has  raised.  In  this 
brief  introduction  I  shall  endeavour  to  summarize  the 
more  important  of  these  larger  issues  and  to  bespeak 
for  them  the  attention  which  they  do  not  seem  to  have 
yet  fully  received  in  some  at  least  of  the  neutral  na- 
tions. My  aim  is  simply  to  recapitulate,  without 
argument  or  rhetoric,  the  salient  facts  that  bear  upon 
the  conduct  of  the  War,  and  to  ask  readers  in  neutral 
countries  to  reflect  on  what  these  facts  show,  and  to 
form  their  own  judgment  accordingly. 

The  present  war  differs  from  all  that  have  gone 
before  it  not  only  in  its  vast  scale  and  in  the  volume  of 
misery  it  has  brought  upon  the  world,  but  also  in  the 
fact  that  it  is  a  war  of  Principles,  and  a  war  in  which 
the  permanent  interests,  not  merely  of  the  belligerent 
Powers  but  of  all  nations,  are  involved  as  such  interests 
were  never  involved  before. 

This  is  a  fact  which  many  persons  in  neutral  coun- 
tries have  not  yet  understood.  They  seem  to  think 

ix 


x  INTRODUCTION 

that,  as  has  usually  happened  in  previous  wars,  there 
is  no  great  distinction  between  the  combatants.  They 
perceive  that  charges  and  counter  charges  are  bandied 
to  and  fro,  and  they  have  not  the  patience  to  enquire 
which  are  true  and  which  false.  Being  perhaps  too 
lazy  or  indifferent  to  examine  the  motives  and  the 
conduct  of  the  parties,  they  lapse  into  the  easy  assump- 
tion that  both  are  equally  to  blame,  and  that  if  they 
themselves  have  any  duty  at  all  as  citizens  of  a  neutral 
country,  that  duty  is  only  to  do  their  best  to  bring 
back  peace  at  the  earliest  possible  moment,  with  no 
thought  for  a  more  distant  future.  Some  neutral 
writers  have  put  this  view  crudely  by  saying  it  is  only 
a  quarrel  of  two  dogs  over  a  bone,  whom  the  bystander 
would  like  to  separate.  Each  nation  is,  they  assume, 
fighting  for  its  own  selfish  interests,  just  as  the  mon- 
archs  of  Europe  used  to  fight  in  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries  to  acquire  territory  or  trade. 

But  this  is  not  such  a  war. '  I  do  not  deny  that  such 
a  war  of  the  older  type  might  still  occur.  Nations  might 
quarrel  over  their  respective  territorial  claims  and 
become  angry  enough  to  fight  the  matter  out  instead 
of  going  to  arbitration.  Such  a  war  need  not  have 
raised  any  moral  issue.  For  each  of  the  contending 
claims  there  might  have  been  good  arguments,  and 
it  might  well  have  been  thought  that  faults  on  both 
sides  had  led  to  the  outbreak  of  hostilities.  Even  if 
the  balance  of  merits  inclined  one  way  or  the  other, 
dispassionate  and  well  informed  observers  in  neutral 
countries  might  have  been  divided  in  opinion  as 
to  those  merits,  and  have  hesitated  to  express  their 
sympathies  as  was  the  case  with  the  War  between 


INTRODUCTION  xi 

Prussia  and  Austria  in  1866,  and  between  Russia  and 
Japan  in  1901.  But  let  me  repeat  it,  this  is  not  a  case 
in  which  neutrals  can  look  on  with  an  indifferent  or 
merely  curious  eye.  This  is  a  war  of  Principles,  moral 
and  political,  in  which  every  man  in  neutral  countries 
who  has  a  sense  of  his  personal  duties  to  humanity 
ought  to  try  to  find  the  truth  and  to  form  an  honest 
and  impartial  judgment  on  the  merits,  so  that  the 
sentiment  of  his  country  would  cast  its  weight  on  the 
side  of  truth  and  humanity. 

Into  the  circumstances  attending  the  outbreak  of 
the  war  I  will  not  here  enter.  That  would  lead  me 
into  too  wide  a  field.  Those  circumstances  may  be 
studied  in  the  documents  published  by  the  belligerent 
powers,  and  they  are  dealt  with  in  some  of  the  pamph- 
lets in  this  volume.  No  fuller  and  fairer  examinations 
of  them  have  been  published  than  are  contained  in 
two  books  written  by  American  jurists,  the  book  of 
Mr.  Ellery  Stowell,  entitled  "The  Diplomacy  of  the 
War  of  1914,"  and  the  book  of  Mr.  James  M.  Beck 
called  "The  Evidence  in  the  Case,"  books  to  which 
rather  than  to  any  English  book,  I  desire  to  refer  be- 
cause their  authors,  being  neutrals,  wrote  with  a  com- 
plete freedom  from  national  bias.  I  shall  here  examine 
not  the  Origins  of  the  war  but  the  Conduct  of  the  war, 
the  facts  regarding  which  are  really  not  in  controversy, 
and  shall  try  to  indicate  the  light  that  conduct  casts 
upon  the  character  of  the  parties  and  the  nature  of 
the  issues  raised,  as  these  now  affect  the  world  at  large. 
But  one  preliminary  word  must  be  said  as  to  the  posi- 
tion and  motives  of  Great  Britain. 

Britain  did  not  expect  this  war  and  did  not  wish 


xii  INTRODUCTION 

for  it.  All  her  interests  were  against  a  war.  She  had 
nothing  to  gain  and  much  to  lose.  She  was  quite  un- 
prepared for  war.  Her  army  was  small,  and  she  had 
made  no  plans  for  increasing  it  such  as  she  has  been 
obliged,  suddenly  and  at  an  enormous  cost,  to  im- 
provise since  the  War  began.  She  had  only  a  small 
stock  of  artillery,  the  thing  most  necessary  in  modern 
warfare.  The  German  Government  has  invented  and 
tried  to  propagate  three  statements  regarding  Bri- 
tain's action,  all  equally  baseless.  One  is  that  she  was 
filled  with  jealousy  and  envy  of  Germany's  commercial 
prosperity  and  therefore  anxious  to  ruin  German  trade 
and  arrest  German  development.  There  is  not  a  word 
of  truth  in  this.  The  English  were  not  so  ignorant 
and  destitute  of  business  sense  as  not  to  see  that  the 
crippling  of  Germany  by  war  must  cost  them  in  a  few 
months  ten  times  as  much  as  they  could  have  gained 
in  twenty  years  by  arresting  the  growth  of  German 
trade  competition.  Germany  moreover  was  their  best 
foreign  customer.  They  bought  more  from  her  than 
from  any  foreign  European  nation:  and  they  sold  more 
to  her. 

Some  Englishmen  had  become  uneasy  at  the  con- 
tinued increase  of  the  German  fleet,  because  there  was 
no  nation  except  Britain  against  which  that  increase 
could  seem  to  be  directed.  But  there  was  no  hatred 
of  Germany  in  the  breasts  of  the  British  people:  and 
few  believed  that  any  war  would  in  our  time  disturb 
the  relations  of  the  countries. 

The  second  allegation  is  that  the  late  King  Edward 
had  brought  about  an  alliance  with  France  intended  to 
hem  in  and  menace  Germany.  This  also  is  untrue. 


INTRODUCTION  xiii 

Edward  VII  was  a  genuine  lover  of  peace  and  wished 
for  friendship  with  the  French,  whom  he  liked,  and 
from  whom  Britain  had  been  divided  by  various  clashes 
of  interest.  He  did  something,  not  politically,  but  by 
his  personal  kindliness  and  courtesy,  to  bring  about 
good  will  between  the  two  peoples.  That  was  all. 
He  had  no  hostile  designs  whatever  against  Germany, 
nor  had  his  Ministers. 

The  third  story  is  that  Britain  had  arranged  with 
Belgium  to  attack  Germany  through  Belgian  territory. 
This  is  a  pure  fabrication.  All  that  was  ever  done  was 
to  consider  with  the  Belgian  Government  what  Britain 
should  do,  as  a  Power  bound  by  treaty  to  protect  the 
integrity  of  Belgium,  in  case  any  third  Power  should 
invade  Belgian  territory.  This  it  was  Britain's  plain 
duty  to  consider.  She  had  saved  Belgian  territory 
from  attack  in  1870  by  her  intervention,  and  might 
have  to  do  so  again. 

Now  let  me  ask  any  fair-minded  neutral  to  follow 
the  chief  incidents  of  the  war  from  August  4,  1914, 
and  pass  his  judgment  upon  the  facts,  facts  which  are 
open  to  no  controversy. 

The  war  began,  so  far  as  Britain  was  concerned, 
with  August  4th,  on  which  day  the  German  armies 
entered  Belgium,  having  lulled  the  Belgian  Govern- 
ment by  the  assurances  which  their  Minister  at  Brus- 
sels continued  to  give  until  two  days  before  the  ulti- 
matum, demanding  a  passage  through  the  country. 
As  the  German  Chancellor  shortly  afterward  confessed 
in  the  Reichstag  that  his  Government  had  done  a 
wrong  and  violated  international  law  by  carrying  war 
into  a  country  the  neutrality  and  independence  of 


xiv  INTRODUCTION 

which  every  one  knows  they  had  guaranteed,  and 
which,  had  there  been  no  guarantee  at  all,  was  entitled 
on  the  common  principles  of  justice  to  be  exempt 
from  invasion,  no  more  need  be  said  as  to  the  morality 
or  legality  of  the  German  action.  It  was  wholly  un- 
provoked and  wholly  unjustified,  for  the  stories  that 
France  had  planned  to  attack  Germany  through  Bel- 
gium and  that  French  officers  had  already  entered  that 
country  were  evidently  invented,  and  were  subsequently 
dropped.  The  only  effect  of  these  stories  and  of  that 
other  tale  that  French  aeroplanes  had  flown  over 
German  territory,  a  tale  afterward  also  abandoned 
when  it  had  served  its  momentary  purpose,  was  to 
show  that  no  reliance  can  be  placed  on  statements 
proceeding  from  the  German  Government. 

The  invasion  of  Belgium,  the  most  flagrant  offence 
against  international  right  Europe  had  seen  for  cen- 
turies, proved  that  the  German  Government  could  not 
be  trusted  to  keep  any  engagement,  however  solemn. 
It  does  not  appear  to  be  realized  in  neutral  countries 
how  great  is  the  difficulty  which  such  a  breach  of  faith 
places  in  the  way  of  negotiations  for  armistice  or  peace. 
A  Government  which  violates  its  obligations  toward 
those  with  whom  it  has  been  at  peace,  and  defends 
this  violation  by  the  plea  of  its  own  military  necessity, 
can  even  less  be  relied  on  to  fulfil  any  promise  made  to 
its  enemies. 

The  next  event,  or  rather  series  of  events,  which 
showed  how  much  this  war  was  going  to  differ  from 
previous  wars,  was  the  conduct  of  the  German  invading 
armies  in  Belgium  and  Northern  France.  All  along 
the  line  of  their  march  innocent  civilians,  old  men, 


INTRODUCTION  xv 

women,  and  children,  as  well  as  other  inhabitants, 
were  slaughtered  on  the  pretext  that  some  persons  in 
the  towns  and  villages  had  shot  at  the  invading  force. 
The  leading  inhabitants — often  priests — were  con- 
stantly seized  and  called  "hostages,"  who  were  to  be 
put  to  death  if  any  resistance  was  made  by  any  civilian, 
though  these  persons  were  not  responsible  for  such 
resistance  and  could  not  have  prevented  it.  Such 
4 'hostages"  were  frequently  shot.  Hundreds  of  inno- 
cent persons  were  seized,  packed  in  baggage  or  cattle 
cars  and  sent  by  railway  to  Germany,  often  without 
food  or  drink  for  many  hours  together.  Villages  and 
large  parts  of  such  a  city  as  Louvain  were  destroyed 
by  fire.  Shocking  outrages  were  committed  upon 
women,  and  that  by  officers  as  well  as  soldiers,  and 
little  effort  was  made  to  restrain  or  punish  such  crimes, 
which  were  often  committed  under  the  influence  of 
liquor.  The  accounts  of  these  murders  and  other  ex- 
cesses which  the  refugees  who  escaped  from  Belgium 
reported  found  at  first  little  credence  in  England,  for 
it  was  hard  to  believe  that  the  soldiers  of  a  civilized 
nation  could  commit  them.  But  when  the  Belgian, 
French,  and  British  Governments  caused  the  evidence 
of  eye  witnesses  among  the  refugees  to  be  carefully 
taken  and  tested,  it  was  proved  beyond  all  question 
not  only  that  such  things  had  happened,  but  that  they 
had  happened  by  the  orders  of  the  German  officers, 
who  themselves  were  acting  under  orders  from  head- 
quarters, and  who  sometimes  expressed  regret  at  having 
to  execute  such  orders.  If  there  are  any  persons  in 
neutral  countries  who  still  think  such  things  too  horrible 
to  be  true,  let  them  weigh  these  two  facts.  Diaries 


xvi  INTRODUCTION 

(written  in  German)  found  upon  German  prisoners,  or 
on  the  bodies  of  dead  German  soldiers,  contain  records 
of  the  same  (or  quite  similar)  crimes  as  the  evidence 
of  the  refugees  established.  The  genuineness  of  these 
diaries,  many  of  which  have  been  published  by  the 
Belgian,  French,  and  British  investigators,  is  not  dis- 
puted by  the  German  Government.  They  alone  are 
sufficient  to  prove  how  the  troops  behaved.  The 
second  fact  is  that  the  German  Government  has  never 
attempted  to  disprove  the  evidence  adduced  against 
them.  They  did  publish  a  sort  of  reply  to  the  Belgian 
reports,  but  it  consisted  chiefly  of  allegations  that 
Belgian  civilians  had  given  provocation  by  firing  on 
German  troops.  This  attempt  at  a  justification  was  a 
tacit  admission  that  the  massacres  had  occurred,  and 
that  in  them  there  had  been  killed,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
many  innocent  persons  no  way  concerned  in  such  firing. 
In  fact  the  vast  majority  of  those  so  executed  including 
the  so-called  "hostages"  had  no  responsibility  at  all 
for  the  occasional  firing,  such  as  it  may  have  been. 
To  the  British  Report,  which  contained  a  very  large 
number  of  depositions  by  the  witnesses,  the  German 
Government  has  never  ventured,  in  the  nineteen  months 
that  have  elapsed  since  its  publication,  to  make  any 
official  reply. 

Next  after  the  murders  on  land  came  those  at  sea. 
Submarines  began  to  destroy,  usually  without  any 
warning,  unarmed  merchant  vessels,  drowning  their 
crews;  and  also  unarmed  passenger  vessels,  drowning 
their  passengers.  The  Lusitania,  in  which  twelve 
hundred  people  perished,  many  of  these  citizens  of 
neutral  countries,  was  only  one  of  many  cases.  These 


INTRODUCTION  xvii 

practices,  gross  violations  of  the  rule  of  international 
law  which  requires  that  the  safety  of  those  on  board  a 
merchant  ship  shall  be  provided  for  if  she  is  sunk, 
have  gone  on  till  now.  Even  hospital  ships,  about 
whose  character  there  could  be  no  mistake,  have  been 
torpedoed. 

A  little  later  than  the  murders  on  land  and  sea 
came  the  murders  from  the  air.  In  the  many  air  raids 
over  England  no  military  damage  has  been  done,  and 
only  a  handful  of  soldiers,  about  fifty  (so  far  as  I  know), 
have  suffered.  But  many  hundreds  of  innocent  civil- 
ians, mostly  women  and  children,  have  been  maimed 
or  killed;  and  the  murders  still  go  on.  The  German 
Government  must  by  this  time  know  that  these  raids 
have  no  effect  upon  the  British  people  except  to  rouse 
their  anger  and  so  to  make  them  more  determined  than 
ever  to  prosecute  the  war.  Why  then  are  the  air  raids 
continued?  Apparently  only  to  make  the  Germans 
at  home  believe  that  the  enemy  is  being  injured  and 
so  to  sustain  their  spirits  when  the  long  expected 
victories  in  France  do  not  arrive. 

In  the  spring  of  1915  the  so-called  Young  Turk 
Committee  which  now  rules  Turkey  in  the  name  of  the 
Sultan,  began  without  any  provocation  from  their 
Armenian  subjects,  a  series  of  massacres  and  deporta- 
tions in  Armenia  and  Asia  Minor  in  which  from  600,000 
to  800,000  of  those  Christian  subjects  have  been  put  to 
death,  the  men  by  murder,  the  women  and  children 
mostly  by  being  torn  from  their  homes  and  driven 
away  by  Turkish  troops  through  deserts  where  those 
who  did  not  die  by  the  war  are  now  dying  from  hunger, 
exposure  and  disease.  Many  more  of  the  women  have 


xviii  INTRODUCTION 

been  seized  by  Turks,  or  sold  in  open  market,  to  be 
enslaved  in  Turkish  harems.  The  German  Govern- 
ment knew  perfectly  well  what  was  being  done.  How 
far  they  actively  encouraged  it,  or  allowed  their  officers 
on  the  spot  to  do  so,  we  do  not  yet  know.  But  it  is 
certain  that  they  acquiesced  in  it.  They  could  have 
stopped  it  by  lifting  a  finger  had  they  wished  to  do  so, 
for  the  Turks  are  entirely  in  their  hands.  Instead  of 
arresting  the  slaughter,  they  have  honoured  the  two 
chief  criminals,  Talaat  and  Enver,  by  many  compli- 
ments and  the  last  named  ruffian  by  a  colonelcy  in 
the  German  army. 

I  pass  over  other  incidents,  such  as  the  treatment 
of  war  prisoners  and  the  executions  of  Miss  Cavell  and 
Captain  Fryatt,  to  come  to  the  latest  instances  of  the 
German  Government's  methods  in  warfare.  Last 
spring  they  carried  off  hundreds  of  girls  from  their 
homes  in  Northern  France  to  be  forced  to  work  in 
Germany.  Within  the  last  three  months  they  have 
seized  many  thousands  of  Belgian  working  men,  and 
on  the  pretext  that  there  is  no  employment  for  them  in 
the  towns  where  they  live,  have  carried  them  off,  amid 
the  cries  of  their  children  and  the  shrieks  of  their  wives 
who  flung  themselves  on  the  rails  in  front  of  the  loco- 
motives, to  German  towns  where  they  will  be  forced 
to  work  for  their  enemy  masters  against  their  own 
fellow  countrymen.  The  motive,  so  the  German 
Government  announces,  is  a  philanthropic  one.  It  is 
not  good  for  workmen  to  be  unemployed.  The  un- 
employment, it  need  hardly  be  said,  had  been  caused 
by  the  German  Government  itself,  which  had  taken 
out  of  the  country  for  its  own  use  all  the  raw  materials 


INTRODUCTION  xix 

of  industry  and  all  the  machinery.  These  workmen 
were  not  starving.  When  the  Germans  refused  to  feed, 
they  were  and  had  continued  to  be  fed  by  the  charity 
of  Americans  and  Englishmen,  directed  by  the  energy 
of  an  American,  Mr.  Hoover.  In  one  Belgian  prov- 
ince, where  some  private  factories  were  still  going,  the 
German  authorities  stopped  these  in  order  to  invent  a 
ground  for  treating  the  workmen  as  unemployed,  and 
driving  them  off  into  Germany  to  labour  there.  This 
is  slave  raiding,  worthy  of  those  Arab  marauders  whom 
Livingstone  tried  to  root  out  of  Africa. 

A  similar  violation  of  the  best  settled  rules  of  inter- 
national law  is  being  now  carried  out  in  Poland.  Here 
the  Polish  inhabitants  of  the  invaded  districts  which 
the  German  armies  occupy  are  being  forced  into  the 
German  army  on  the  pretext  that  the  country  is  al- 
ready conquered  and  its  people  already  German  sub- 
jects. They  will  be  roped  in  and  driven  to  die  in  order 
to  perpetuate  the  tyranny  which  the  German  Govern- 
ment has  already  been  exercising  over  their  brethren 
in  part  of  old  Poland  which  she  has  held  by  force 
these  many  years. 

All  the  facts  here  briefly  enumerated  are  indisputable 
and  undisputed  facts.  Whatever  be  the  excuses  or 
palliations  which  the  German  Government  may  put 
forward,  all  these  acts  are  flagrant  violations  not  only 
of  international  law  but  of  the  long  settled  practice 
of  civilized  nations.  They  are  even  worse.  They 
violate  the  fundamental  principles  of  natural  justice 
and  of  common  humanity.  Even  Bonaparte,  whose 
offences  shocked  his  contemporaries,  did  not  in  eighteen 
years  of  war  commit  so  many  breaches  of  the  much 


xx  INTRODUCTION 

laxer  international  rules  of  his  time,  nor  so  offend 
against  helpless  innocence,  as  the  German  generals 
have  done  since  August  4,  1914.  If  some  persons  in 
neutral  nations  have  found  it  hard  to  believe  that  these 
successive  acts  of  cruelty  and  injustice  really  happened 
this  is  because  the  spirit  and  temper  they  reveal  were 
so  little  to  be  expected  from  the  armies  of  a  civilized 
nation.  The  difficulty,  however,  disappears  when 
one  studies  the  manuals  of  military  law  and  practice 
issued  by  the  German  General  Staff,  and  learns  to 
know  what  is  the  official  German  doctrine  of  war.  Ac- 
cording to  that  doctrine,  the  State  is  above  all  morality. 
Whatever  is  done  in  its  interest  is  right.  There  is  in 
international  relations,  be  they  of  war  or  peace,  really 
no  such  thing  as  Right  but  only  Force.  Force  makes 
Right.  Whatever  war  necessity  prescribes  is  proper 
to  be  done.  Treaties  may  be  broken,  neutral  countries 
attacked,  innocent  non-combatants  killed.  Many  Ger- 
man theorists  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  it  is  Germany's 
mission,  assigned  to  her  by  Providence  or  by  Nature, 
to  dominate  all  other  nations,  because  she  is  the  strong- 
est and  most  civilized  among  them.  It  appears,  there- 
fore, that  the  crimes  enumerated,  all  of  which  were 
done  by  the  orders  of  the  military  authorities,  are 
done  not  at  random  but  in  pursuance  of  a  System,  and 
will  be  repeated  as  long  as  that  System  and  the  military 
caste  which  approves  it  and  carries  it  out  in  practice 
hold  sway  in  Germany.  As  was  observed  long  ago, 
the  occupation  of  Prussians  is  war.  Among  them  the 
Soldier  is  master.  Professor  Gilbert  Murray  has  well 
said:  "Germany  has  produced  the  specialized  soldier, 
not  the  humane  soldier,  the  Christian  soldier,  the 


INTRODUCTION  xxi 

chivalrous  soldier,  or  the  soldier  with  a  sense  of  civil 
duties,  but  the  soldier  who  is  trained  to  be  a  soldier  and 
nothing  else,  to  disregard  all  the  rest  of  human  rela- 
tions, to  see  all  his  country's  neighbours  merely  as 
enemies  to  be  duped  and  conquered,  to  see  all  life 
according  to  some  system  of  perverted  biology  as  a 
mere  struggle  of  force  and  fraud.  The  Germans  have 
created  this  type  of  soldier,  alike  concentrated,  con- 
scienceless and  remorseless,  and  then — what  no  other 
people  in  the  world  has  done — they  have  given  the 
nation  over  to  his  guidance." 

It  is  against  this  system  and  the  principles  on  which 
it  rests  that  the  Allies  are  fighting.  That  is  why  this 
war  is  a  War  of  Principles.  Great  Britain  and  France 
repudiate  the  German  doctrines  in  theory  and  in  prac- 
tice. No  such  maxims  or  rules  stand  in  their  war  code: 
they  have  not  committed,  and,  as  we  trust,  are  incap- 
able of  committing,  such  offences  as  those  I  have  men- 
tioned. Neither  of  them  desires  to  dominate  other 
countries.  What  they  seek  is  security  for  themselves 
and  for  all  the  nations  that  wish  to  live  at  peace,  not 
being  themselves  threatened,  not  threatening  their 
neighbours. 

Two  questions  may  now  be  addressed  to  impartial 
men  in  neutral  nations. 

First.  How  can  any  fair-minded  citizen  of  a  neutral 
nation,  one  who  honours  Right  and  loves  peace,  fail 
to  see  a  distinction  between  the  conduct  of  the  War  by 
the  Allies  on  the  one  side,  and  its  conduct  by  the  Ger- 
man, Austrian,  and  Turkish  Governments  on  the  other? 
Can  he  not  perceive  what  is  involved  for  mankind  at 
large  in  the  victory  of  one  or  other  party  to  this  struggle, 


xxii  INTRODUCTION 

or  imagine  what  sort  of  a  world  there  would  be  in  the 
future  if  Germany  were  to  conquer,  what  perils  peace- 
able neutral  nations  would  have  to  fear  at  the  hands 
of  a  triumphant  Prussian  militarism? 

Secondly.  How  can  the  Allies  make  peace  until 
this  militarism,  this  system  which  places  Force  above 
Right  and  denies  all  international  morality,  has  been 
defeated?  We  in  Britain  can  understand  the  passion- 
ate desire  of  humane  men  and  women  in  neutral  coun- 
tries to  see  this  awful  war  brought  to  a  speedy  end. 
Do  we  not  feel  that  desire  ourselves,  we  who  in  France 
and  Britain  are  losing  the  flower  of  our  youth,  every 
household  in  mourning  for  sons  and  brothers  and 
husbands?  But  we  also  feel — those  of  us  who  have 
worked  for  peace  all  our  lives  just  as  much  as  others 
—that  a  peace  made  now,  leaving  the  military  system 
and  military  caste  of  Germany  still  unbroken  in  power, 
in  credit  and  self-confidence,  in  its  prestige  and  ascend- 
ancy over  its  own  people,  would  be  only  a  truce,  a 
brief  respite  in  a  conflict  which  that  military  caste 
would  resume  as  soon  as  it  had  repaired  its  losses.  To 
make  the  sort  of  treaty  which  Germany  desires,  and 
which  she  intimates  she  might  accept,  would  not  only 
leave  her  in  possession  of  ill-gotten  gains,  with  no  ade- 
quate reparation  for  the  wrongs  she  has  inflicted,  but 
would  be  an  acquiescence  in,  almost  an  encouragement 
to  repeat,  the  methods  by  which  she  has  carried  on 
this  war.  Such  methods  need  to  be  stamped  with  the 
brand  not  only  of  Infamy  but  of  Failure.  Nothing  else 
will  suffice  to  prevent  them  from  being  repeated  in 
future.  The  British  people  do  not  desire  to  dis- 
member Germany  nor  to  inflict  any  permanent  injury 


INTRODUCTION  xxiii 

on  the  German  people.  But  they  do  desire  a  victory 
sufficient  to  bring  about  a  peace  that  will  endure,  not 
one  darkened  by  prospects  of  future  aggression  and 
by  the  constant  need  of  maintaining  huge  armaments 
for  their  own  defence  against  that  militarism  which  has 
so  long  threatened  Europe.  And  in  fighting  for  this 
they  are  fighting  the  battle  of  Neutrals  also. 

One  more  remark  in  conclusion.  The  crimes  com- 
mitted in  the  conduct  of  this  war  have  been  committed 
not  by  a  free  people  but  by  a  Government  which  hates 
and  fears  freedom.  Whether  you  call  it  an  autocracy 
or  a  military  oligarchy  matters  little.  What  does 
matter  is  that  it  is  not  a  Government  which  rests  on 
public  opinion  and  the  popular  will.  No  Government 
created  by  a  free  people  would  have  embraced  such 
principles  or  committed  such  offences.  Can  we  im- 
agine the  people  of  Switzerland,  or  Norway,  or  the 
United  States,  using  their  troops  to  force  thousands  of 
innocent  workers  into  slavery?  Can  we  suppose  that 
the  people  even  of  Germany  itself,  if  they  had  been 
permitted  by  their  tyrannical  rulers  to  know  the  truth 
about  the  War  and  how  it  has  been  conducted,  would 
have  authorized  either  the  inhuman  treatment  of 
non-combatants  in  Belgium  (invaded  without  provoca- 
tion) or  the  tacit  approval  of  the  hideous  massacres 
perpetrated  by  their  Turkish  allies? 

This  War  of  Principles  therefore  is  a  War  not  only 
for  the  vindication  of  international  right,  for  the  faith 
of  treaties,  for  the  protection  of  the  innocent,  but  also 
for  Liberty.  No  greater  blow  could  be  struck  at  de- 
mocracy than  a  German  victory.  The  spirit  of  Mili- 
tarism is  the  enemy  of  freedom  as  well  as  of  peace. 


xxiv  INTRODUCTION 

Tyranny  makes  militarism,  tyranny  rules  by  it.  This 
is  why  we  in  England  and  France  trust  that  the  peoples 
of  all  the  free  countries  will  recognize  what  is  involved 
for  them  in  this  war,  and  will  extend  their  moral  sup- 
port to  a  cause  which  is,  since  they  love  freedom,  their 
own  cause,  as  well  as  the  cause  of  human  progress. 


I 
THE  WAR  OF  DEMOCRACY 

Lard  Haldane  States  Britain's  Case 
By  EDWARD  PRICE  BELL 

London  Correspondent  of  the  "  Chicago  Daily  News " 


FOREWORD 

THIS  is  a  reprint  of  an  interview  given  by  Lord 
Haldane  to  Mr.  E.  Price  Bell,  one  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished American  journalists,  and  London  corres- 
pondent of  the  Chicago  Daily  News.  What  Lord 
Haldane  says  speaks  for  itself,  but  it  is  obvious  that  a 
document  so  important  as  this  interview  (it  will  clearly 
become  one  of  the  main  texts  to  which  future  historians 
of  present  events  must  refer)  could  not  have  been  issued 
without  the  knowledge  of  the  Prime  Minister  and 
the  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs. 

Lord  Haldane's  account  of  the  diplomatic  relations 
between  England  and  Germany  previous  to  the  war,  in 
which  he  played  so  much  part,  supplements  in  several 
important  particulars  the  information  already  accessible 
from  official  sources.  In  particular  we  have  for  the  first 
time  Lord  Haldane's  own  account  of  his  missions  to 
Berlin,  and  his  own  description  of  the  feelings  aroused  in 
him  by  what  he  heard  on  these  two  occasions. 

Lord  Haldane,  after  this  interview  was  first  pub- 
lished in  the  press,  was  assailed  on  the  ground  that, 
though  he  had  come  away  from  Berlin  feeling  anxious 
as  to  Germany's  pacific  intentions,  he  still  took  no 
steps  to  increase  the  British  forces  available  for  service 
on  the  Continent.  A  criticism  of  this  kind  ignores 
our  friendship  and  understanding  with  France.  Lord 
Haldane's  task  as  War  Minister  was  not  to  create  or 

3 


4  FOREWORD 

maintain  a  force  sufficent  to  fight  Germany  single- 
handed  on  land,  or  even  to  take  the  main  part  in  a 
land  campaign.  His  task  was  to  prepare  a  force 
sufficient  to  meet  the  needs  imposed  upon  us  by  our 
entente  with  France  should  that  friendship  ever  in  tine 
of  stress  result  in  a  military  alliance. 

In  determining  the  scale  and  equipment  of  the  Expe- 
ditionary Force,  therefore,  Lord  Haldane's  duty  was 
solely  to  have  regard  to  the  amount  of  assistance  which 
the  French  Government  estimated  they  might  require 
should  we  ally  ourselves  with  them.  There  is  no 
evidence,  and  it  has  never  been  asserted,  that  he  failed 
in  this  particular.  Indeed,  it  is  quite  clear  that  in  the 
early  days  of  the  war  the  Expeditionary  Force,  by  its 
preparedness,  the  rapidity  of  its  transport,  and  its  action 
in  the  field,  more  than  fulfilled  whatever  undertakings 
were  given  to  our  Allies. 


THE  WAR  OF  DEMOCRACY 

FOR  an  hour  and  a  half  on  Sunday,  March  7*, 
Viscount  Haldane,  Lord  Chancellor  of  England, 
seated    among   the    books    and    engravings    of 
his   delightful   study   overlooking   St.    James's   Park, 
talked  to  me  of  the  genesis,  progress,  and  promise  of 
the  World  War.     From  first  to  last  the  words  of  the 
Lord  Chancellor — carefully  chosen  words — seemed  to 
me  full  of  force  and  fine  feeling,  deeply  serious,  unem- 
bittered,  eloquent,  illuminating. 

Before  pausing  to  try  to  indicate  something  of  the 
mien,  spirit,  and  work  of  Lord  Haldane,  I  hasten  to 
quote  him  on  an  urgent  topic. 

FIGHT   FOR   LIFE 

"We  ask  you  in  America — all,  whether  for  or  against 
us,  heirs  of  the  early  struggles  of  our  race — to  realize 
that  when  we  say  we  are  fighting  for  life  we  use  no 
figure  of  speech.  Hyperbole  there  is  in  plenty,  of 
course;  but  this  is  not  hyperbole.  We  are  fighting 
for  life,  and  we  ask  the  forbearance  of  America  while 
we  prosecute  the  struggle.  If  we  appear  in  a  wholly 
new  situation  to  go  beyond  some  of  the  rules  of  the 
books  we  shall  not  violate  the  dictates  of  humanity, 
and  shall  not  turn  back  the  clock  of  civilization.  We 
take  it  that  our  interest  in  ending  the  war  quickly 

5 

1916.] 


6  THE  WA&  OF  DEMOCRACY 

— ending  it  in  the  only  way  in  which  the  Allies  can 
afford  to  see  it  ended  at  all — is  also  the  interest  of 
the  United  States. 

"Germany's  submarine  warfare  on  belligerents  and 
neutrals  alike  is  a  thing  with  no  analogue.  We  are 
compelled  to  meet  it.  In  devising  a  plan,  we  have 
given  anxious  study  to  the  interests  of  neutrals.  We 
have  settled  upon  certain  general  principles  that 
seem  to  us  more  favourable  to  neutrals  than  are  the 
hitherto  sufficient  principles  of  international  law. 
Some  American  newspaper,  I  believe,  has  said  that 
we,  in  our  turn,  are  destroying  a  'scrap  of  paper/ 
We  think  we  are  creating  a  'scrap  of  paper/  and  one 
with  which  neutrals,  possessing  full  knowledge,  will 
find  no  reason  to  quarrel. 

"If  we  had  recourse  to  the  full  rigours  of  the  con- 
ventional blockade,  we  could  claim  to  confiscate  ships 
and  cargoes  seeking  to  evade  it.  What  we  want  to  do 
is  to  spare  neutrals  all  possible  inconvenience  and 
injury,  spare  their  crews,  ships,  and  cargoes,  and  still 
throw  the  last  ounce  of  our  naval  strength  into  the  effort 
to  break  the  system  that  despotism  has  set  in  operation 
against  the  happiness  and  prosperity  of  the  world. 

"About  America  let  me  say  two  or  three  things 
with  all  emphasis.  We  do  not  assert  any  right  to  ask 
America  to  come  into  this  war.  One  has  heard  it 
said  that  your  country,  as  a  result  of  the  faith  it  has 
had  in  the  security  of  peace,  is  so  unprepared  for 
war  as  to  be  relatively  negligible  in  a  warlike  sense. 
This  notion  we  do  not  share.  We  have  not  a  doubt 
that  America  would  be  a  most  formidable  factor  in 
any  war  in  which  it  might  engage. 


THE  WAR  OF  DEMOCRACY  7 

"But  we  do  not  claim  that  your  country  should 
throw  its  sword  into  the  scale  on  our  behalf.  We  ask 
no  nation  to  do  this.  Such  a  question  as  that  of  peace 
or  war  we  think  should  be  decided  by  every  nation  with 
sole  reference  to  its  own  view  of  its  duty  and  needs. 
We  realize  America's  situation.  We  sympathize  with 
President  Wilson  in  what  we  regard  as  his  honourable 
fidelity  to  his  official  trust." 

Now,  just  a  glance  at  Lord  Haldane,  the  man  and 
his  life. 

He  is  fifty -eight,  rotund,  of  a  goodly  avoirdupois. 
His  face  is  clean  shaven,  broad,  humane.  His  blue 
eyes,  looking  frankly  at  you,  reflect  the  play  of  an 
earnest  and  a  powerful  mind.  His  spirit  is  the  schol- 
ar's. He  is  a  great  constitutional  lawyer.  He  is  a 
deep  student  of  German  thought  and  character- 
knows  more  of  Lessing,  Kant,  Hegel,  Schopenhauer, 
Goethe,  Schiller  than  does  any  other  British  statesman. 
Passionate  pacifist,  he  yet  is  the  creator  of  the  British 
army,  made  and  making,  as  it  exists  to-day.  He  is  a 
close  adviser  of  Premier  Asquith  and  Sir  Edward  Grey. 
He  is  profoundly  esteemed  by  all  his  colleagues  in  the 
Cabinet.  One  feels  quite  safe  in  saying  that  this 
sturdy  and  brilliant  Scotsman  is  not  only  a  worthy 
successor  of  the  ablest  ministers  Great  Britain  has 
produced,  but  one  of  the  wisest  and  best  men  in  the 
political  life  of  the  world. 

Lord  Haldane  is  said  to  have  called  Germany  his 
* 'spiritual  home."  Whether  or  not  he  used  this  exact 
phrase,  he  probably  would  hesitate  to  repudiate  it. 
Educated  at  Gottingen,  he  looks  back  with  reverence 


8  THE  WAR  OF  DEMOCRACY 

upon  Professor  Lotze,  his  old  master,  a  man  from 
whom  a  life  of  study  and  holy  living  had  "stripped  the 
bestial."  There  are  in  Germany  many  spots  that 
Lord  Haldane  cherishes.  To  him  the  Harz  Mountains 
are  imperishably  sweet.  Weimar  and  the  Thiiringian 
Forest — the  spirit  of  Goethe  permeating  them — inter- 
fused their  beauty  and  glamour  with  the  fairest  visions 
of  his  youth.  It  was  because  he  knew  Germany  so 
well  that  the  British  Government  at  one  time  selected 
him  to  try  to  find  some  permanent  basis  of  friendship 
between  that  nation  and  England — some  reconciliation 
of  the  ambitions  of  the  one  and  the  security  of  the  other. 
This  purpose  he  did  his  utmost  to  achieve.  For  what 
he  did  in  this  respect  ignorance  and  malice  have 
laid  their  flail  upon  him  in  his  own  country.  This 
flail,  one  fancies,  has  not  hurt  him  much.  Probably 
the  only  flail  he  really  would  mind  would  be  that 
of  a  duty  which  was  his,  and  which  he  did  not 
perform. 

A   MISSION   TO   GERMANY 

"When  did  you  first  become  fearful  that  Germany 
intended  to  break  the  peace  of  Europe?"  I  asked  Lord 
Haldane. 

"Well,  you  know,"  answered  the  Lord  Chancellor, 
"the  whole  of  the  past  decade  in  Europe  has  been  rather 
critical.  There  were  moments  when  peace  trembled 
in  the  balance.  The  Agadir  incident,  particularly, 
compelled  us  to  face  the  possibility  of  war.  However, 
subsequently  things  improved.  Anglo-German  rela- 
tions appeared  to  be  getting  started  on  the  right  road. 
It  was  with  the  object  of  maintaining  and  accelerating 


THE  WAR  OF  DEMOCRACY  9 

the  improvement  that  I  went  to  Berlin  on  behalf  of 
the  Government  in  February,  1912. 

"With  Bethmann-Hollweg  I  had  close  and  interesting 
conferences.  The  Kaiser,  already  well  known  to  me,  I 
saw  again,  and  it  was  my  privilege  to  talk  with  many 
important  men.  Gratifying  as  were  these  interchanges, 
I  came  away  feeling  uneasy,  Germany  was  piling  up 
armaments.  She  showed  no  disposition  to  restrict  her 
naval  development. 

"Speaking  before  the  American  Bar  Association  at 
Montreal  in  September,  1913,  I  indicated  my  state  of 
mind  as  the  result  of  my  Berlin  visit.  Referring  to 
the  optimism  of  Ernest  Renan,  Matthew  Arnold,  and 
Goethe  respecting  the  future  of  humanity  and  to  the 
noble  prayer  of  Grotius  in  concluding  his  great  book, 
'War  and  Peace/  I  stated  that  there  was  a  long  way  to 
go  before  what  these  men  hoped  or  prayed  for  could  be 
accomplished.  'The  Prayer  of  Grotius,'  I  said,  'has 
not  yet  been  fulfilled,  nor  do  recent  events  point  to 
the  fulfilment  as  being  near.  The  world  is  probably  a 
long  way  off  from  the  abolition  of  armaments  and  the 
peril  of  war." 

"Do  you  think  the  Kaiser  favoured  war?" 

"In  past  years  I  think  the  Kaiser  undoubtedly 
opposed  war.  But  I  am  afraid  his  opposition  to  it 
gradually  weakened.  He  appears  to  have  settled  into 
the  war  mood  about  two  years  ago.  You  will  re- 
member a  remarkable  communication  (published  in 
the  French  Yellow  Book)  from  M.  Jules  Cambon, 
French  Ambassador  at  Berlin,  to  M.  Pichon,  French 
Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs,  in  November,  1913,  re- 
porting a  conversation  between  the  Kaiser  and  the 


10  THE  WAR  OF  DEMOCRACY 

King  of  the  Belgians,  in  the  presence  of  the  Chief  of 
the  German  General  Staff,  General  von  Moltke,  a 
fortnight  before  the  dispatch  was  written:  *  Hostility 
against  us  is  becoming  more  marked,  and  the  Emperor 
has  ceased  to  be  a  partisan  of  peace.' 

"Thus  wrote  Cambon,  and  he  went  on  to  say  that 
the  Emperor  appeared  to  be  'completely  changed'; 
that  he  had  been  '  brought  to  think  that  war  with  France 
must  come';  and  that  he  believed  in  the  'crushing 
superiority  of  the  German  army.'  I  think  in  the  end 
the  Kaiser  was  borne  off  his  feet  completely  by  the 
military  party." 

"Was  there  real  fear  in  Germany  that  England  and 
her  Allies  were  planning  an  attack  upon  the  Father- 
land?" 

"I  am  unable  to  see  how  there  should  have  been 
any  such  fear.  Certainly  we  had  done  everything  in 
our  power  to  obviate  it.  When  I  was  in  Berlin  in 
1912,  I  left  no  doubt  in  the  minds  of  the  foremost  men 
there  of  England's  pacific  purposes  and  sentiments 
with  reference  to  Germany.  We  were  prepared,  and 
we  definitely  told  them  we  were  prepared,  to  enter 
into  the  most  binding  agreement  that  in  no  circum- 
stances would  we  be  a  party  to  any  sort  of  aggression 
against  Germany. 

BRITAIN'S  POSITION 

"Moreover,  I  did  my  utmost  to  make  the  Berlin 
statesmen  understand  England's  position.  I  disabused 
their  minds,  if  unmistakable  language  could  do  it,  of  all 
doubt  as  to  what  would  be  England's  attitude  to  a 
violation  of  Belgian  neutrality.  If  the  Germans  ever 


THE  WAR  OF  DEMOCRACY  11 

misunderstood  me  on  this  point,  they  have  only  them- 
selves to  thank.  From  what  I  said  to  Bethmann- 
Hollweg  in  so  many  words  there  ought  to  have  been  no 
doubt  in  his  mind  that  we  should  regard  an  invasion 
of  Belgium  as  something  over  which  he  could  not  reckon 
on  our  neutrality. 

"I  also  told  him  that  as  long  as  Germany  chose  to 
continue  her  policy  of  formidable  naval  development 
we  should  lay  down  two  keels  to  her  one.  There  was 
absolutely  no  ambiguity  in  my  conversation  with  the 
German  Chancellor,  and  he  understood  that  all  I 
said  on  these  matters  represented  the  view  of  the  Brit- 
ish Government.  It  was  of  the  very  essence  of  my 
friendly  purpose  in  going  to  Berlin  to  be  perfectly 
candid  and  explicit.  This  was  so  because  I  felt  that 
in  no  other  way  could  Anglo-German  relations  be  got 
upon  the  right  footing." 

"How  did  it  happen  that  pacific  Germany  utterly 
failed  to  assert  itself?" 

"In  my  opinion,  it  was  simply  a  case  of  the  Prussian 
spirit  temporarily  gaining  the  ascendancy.  Once  it 
had  got  control,  was  in  position  to  speak  with  the  voice 
of  authority,  the  rest  followed  naturally;  for  no  other 
country  so  rushes  after  the  flag  as  does  Germany. 
The  moment  the  Government,  won  over  to  the  milita- 
rist point  of  view,  decided  to  put  forward  the  claim  that 
the  Fatherland  was  in  danger,  and  that  a  war  was 
necessary,  all  Germany  responded  as  one  man.  If  the 
war  could  have  been  averted  for  twenty  years,  I  have 
little  doubt  peace-loving  Germany,  the  Germany  that 
prizes  Right  above  Might,  would  have  gained  final  con- 
trol in  Berlin,  and  the  war  would  not  have  happened." 


12  THE  WAR  OF  DEMOCRACY 

"Assuming  that  the  Allies  win,  will  they  attempt  to 
democratize  German  politics?" 

GOVERNMENT   MUST   COME   FROM   WITHIN 

"It  does  not  seem  to  me  the  Allies  will  find  it  easy 
to  do  this  unless  the  German  people  respond.  You 
know,  it  really  is  impossible  to  impose  government 
from  without.  Government  must  come  from  within. 
If  the  Army  and  the  Navy  and  the  men  who  made 
the  war  lose  their  prestige,  Germany  will  probably 
recover  herself.  How  can  she  better  do  it  than  by 
effectualizing  her  democracy?  In  other  words,  I 
feel  that  the  real  Germany,  which  has  made  so  profound 
an  impression  upon  the  world  by  reason  of  great  quali- 
ties, will  take  over  the  government  of  Germany  when 
the  present  regime  has  been  discredited  and  destroyed. 

"I  cannot  help  thinking  that  the  present  war  should 
bring  to  a  permanent  end  the  system  whereby  political 
personages  use  peoples  as  pawns  on  a  chessboard.  I 
think  secret  diplomacy  will  disappear.  Certainly,  in 
the  light  of  Austrian  methods  leading  up  to  this  war- 
methods  that  went  right  back  to  the  days  of  Metter- 
nich — political  manipulation  beyond  the  reach  of 
the  influence  of  the  people  it  affects  ought  to  dis- 
appear." 

"Then  you  are  looking  for  a  great  democratic  ad- 
vance as  the  result  of  the  war?" 

"For  a  great  democratic  advance,  and  for  a  great 
moral  advance.  Might  has  sought  to  establish  itself 
as  the  supreme  law.  Right  is  on  the  defensive.  It  is 
giving  us  some  very  fine  examples  of  the  best  there  is 
in  human  nature. 


THE  WAR  OF  DEMOCRACY  13 

"The  object  lessons  should  be  beneficial.  Nobility 
should  be  quickened.  Our  standards  should  be  lifted 
up.  We  all  were  too  luxurious.  You  in  Chicago  and 
New  York  were  too  luxurious.  We  in  London  were 
too  luxurious.  Berlin  was  too  luxurious.  In  Paris 
also  people  had  become  luxurious.  We  shall  all  be 
made  simpler  by  the  war.  We  shall  be  made  more 
frugal,  more  serious,  less  cynical,  greater.  Long  years 
will  pass  before  any  one  of  us  ceases  to  feel  the  effects 
of  the  struggle. 

MILITARISM   MUST    BE   BROKEN 

"As  for  democracy,  it  is  democracy's  fight — nothing 
else.  The  militarist  has  hurled  his  system  against 
Europe.  It  must  be  broken.  When  it  is  broken,  a 
settlement  should  be  possible  conserving  the  political 
welfare  of  all  the  peoples  concerned.  Freedom  for  all 
nationalities  is  the  ideal,  and  I  see  no  reason  why  it 
should  not  be  substantially  realized." 

"You  learned  something  of  German  military  prin- 
ciples on  one  of  your  earlier  visits  to  Berlin?" 

'Yes;  I  was  permitted  to  see  a  great  deal  of  the 
way  in  which  they  work  their  military  machine. 
The  Kaiser  let  me  see  something  of  the  working  of  the 
German  War  Office.  Our  own  army  at  this  moment 
is  organized  upon  certain  of  the  great  principles  of 
Moltke.  The  distinctive  thing  about  the  German  army 
I  found  to  be  that  the  administrative  work  is  kept 
separate  from  the  general  staff  work,  and  from  com- 
mand and  training.  Administrative  duties  are  not 
laid  upon  men  whose  business  it  ought  to  be  to  think 
out  strategical  problems  and  to  train  soldiers.  The 


14  THE  WAR  OF  DEMOCRACY 

general  staff  officers  are  free  to  exercise  their  pro- 
fessional skill  in  developing  fighting  men.  This  sep- 
aration of  functions  I  immediately  developed  in  the 
British  army." 

"Did  you  admire  all  you  saw  of  the  German  govern- 
mental organization?" 

"The  higher  command  I  found  admirable;  the 
highest  command  I  found  dubious.  In  the  higher 
command  reign  order,  efficiency,  science;  in  the  highest 
command  there  seems  to  reign  something  resembling 
chaos.  The  personages  of  the  highest  command,  of 
course,  are  the  Kaiser,  the  heads  of  the  Navy  and 
Army,  the  Chancellor  and  the  Minister  for  Foreign 
Affairs.  Now  all  these  forces  are  self-assertive,  and 
they  are  imperfectly  coordinated.  The  heads  of 
the  Navy  and  Army  have  great  influence.  The  Chan- 
cellor presumably  has  great  influence.  The  Minister 
for  Foreign  Affairs  cannot  be  without  influence.  Yet 
among  all  these  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  in- 
timacy of  understanding.  They  do  not  cooperate 
with  one  another. 

MR.  BALFOUR'S  SYSTEM 

"In  this  respect  we  in  England  have  much  the 
advantage  of  them.  Thanks  to  Mr.  Balfour,  who 
introduced  the  system,  we  have  a  body  in  which  all 
points  of  view  are  represented,  including  those  of  the 
Colonies.  The  heads  of  all  departments  contribute 
their  ideas  to  the  common  stock.  Every  one  sees  his 
own  work,  not  only  from  his  own  standpoint,  but  from 
the  standpoints  of  all  the  other  chief  officials  of  the 
Government.  The  result  is  that  no  one  does  anything 


THE  WAR  OF  DEMOCRACY  15 

in  ignorance  of  what  other  members  of  the  Government 
are  doing.  There  is  no  working  at  cross-purposes. 
Germany  has,  I  think,  nothing  quite  so  good  as  this. 

"It  is  said  that  Bethmann-Hollweg  and  Jagow  did 
not  see  the  Austrian  ultimatum  before  it  was  delivered. 
The  Kaiser  probably  saw  it.  Quite  possibly  the  heads 
of  the  Navy  and  Army  saw  it.  But  I  doubt  whether 
the  Chancellor  and  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs 
did  see  it.  Nothing  of  that  sort  could  happen  under 
our  Government  as  at  present  organized." 

"Do  you  think  the  ruling  men  in  Germany  feared 
Great  Britain  as  a  fighting  power?" 

"I  do  not  think  they  regarded  us  as  very  formidable. 
They  thought  our  army  was  insignificant,  our  navy 
old-fashioned,  and  our  nation  decadent.  I  do  not 
think  they  thought  we  could  be  aroused  to  a  tremen- 
dous national  effort.  I  have  no  doubt  they  counted  on 
the  centrifugal  forces  of  our  Empire  working  to  our 
grave  embarrassment.  They  now  must  know  that  they 
misinterpreted  these  supposed  centrifugal  forces." 

"What  do  you  think  of  the  German  argument  that 
America  should  not  export  munitions  to  the  Allies?" 

"It  seems  to  me  unfair.  For  years  Germany  was 
heaping  up  armaments.  She  made  the  most  formid- 
able army  that  ever  had  existed  and  a  navy  by  no  means 
negligible.  Her  arsenals  were  filled  with  munitions. 
She  had  selected  her  own  time  for  a  stupendous  war  of 
aggression.  We  were  much  less  prepared.  Paren- 
thetically, Germany  had  constructed  a  great  system 
of  strategical  railways  parallel  to  the  Russian  frontier; 
Russia  had  done  no  corresponding  thing.  Now,  fully 
prepared  for  war,  with  colossal  accumulations  of  war 


16  THE  WAR  OF  DEMOCRACY 

material,  Germany  decides  upon  the  moment  for  war, 
and  declares  war.  Is  there  any  fairness,  any  chivalry, 
in  her  trying  to  prevent  us,  in  full  accord  with  inter- 
national usage,  from  going  into  neutral  markets  to 
buy  the  implements  that  Germany's  action  causes  us 
so  direly  to  need? 

THE   WAR  AND  ARMAMENTS 

"I  am  glad  to  know  that  American  thought  rejects 
the  German  proposal.  I  am  glad  to  know  that  Amer- 
ican newspapers  are  standing  for  the  principle  of  the 
right  of  nations  to  buy  munitions  when  they  are 
attacked.  Germany  supplied  large  quantities  of  muni- 
tions of  war  to  Russia  during  the  war  with  Japan  and 
thought  it  no  breach  of  neutrality  then.  Why  should  it 
be  such  now?" 

"How  do  you  think  the  war  is  going  to  affect  the 
question  of  armaments?" 

"If  the  Allies  win — if  Germany,  who  has  carried  her 
military  preparations  to  a  pitch  heretofore  unknown, 
finds  herself  beaten — I  do  not  imagine  any  nation  in 
the  future  will  be  likely  to  pin  its  faith  to  armaments. 
If  Germany,  armed  as  she  was  armed,  could  not  win, 
how  could  any  nation  hope  to  win  by  means  of  arms? 
I  am  hopeful  that  the  world  as  a  result  of  this  war 
will  get  rid  of  at  least  a  part  of  the  burden  of  armaments. 
I  am  hopeful  that  civilization  is  going  to  do  something 
to  defend  itself  against  war. 

"We  now  know  that  the  effects  of  war  cannot  be 
localized.  We  know  that  two  considerable  Powers 
cannot  fight  without  inflicting  disturbance  and  loss 
on  the  whole  world.  Definite  knowledge  is  neces- 


THE  WAR  OF  DEMOCRACY  17 

sary  to  definite  action.  I  believe  that  the  world  is 
going  so  to  organize  itself  that  no  nation  out  of  am- 
bition or  fear,  or  because  of  any  other  influence  or 
motive,  will  be  permitted  to  go  to  war.  This  means 
that  differences  somehow  must  be  settled  by  arbitration. 
If  the  world  had  been  so  organized  last  July,  Germany 
could  not  have  refused  to  accept  our  proposal  for  a 
peaceful  settlement  of  the  issues  at  stake." 

ABANDON   IDEALS   OF   WAR 

"What  will  be  the  fate  of  Constantinople  and  the 
Dardanelles?" 

"I  feel  certain  it  can  be  settled  satisfactorily.  In 
any  case  I  imagine  the  Dardanelles  and  the  Bosphorus 
will  be  open  to  the  merchant  ships  of  all  nations. 
What  a  glorious  thing  it  would  be  for  Germany  and 
for  every  one  else  if,  following  your  example  at  Panama, 
she  dealt  with  the  Kiel  Canal  as  America  has  dealt 
with  the  Panama  Canal,  and  then  settled  down  to 
fifty  years  of  peace,  industry,  and  reform.  If  she  did 
this — abandoned  all  her  ideals  of  war  as  a  means  of 
getting  on — I  do  not  think  the  future  would  suggest  to 
her  any  reason  to  return  to  the  discarded  system." 

"Do  you  think  England  would  have  remained  out 
of  the  war  if  Germany  had  respected  the  neutrality  of 
Belgium?" 

"I  am  far  from  sure  that  we  could  have  done  so. 
Belgium  touched  our  honour;  France  touched  our 
feelings  and  our  interests.  Having  regard  to  the  theories 
of  world  conquest  behind  the  successful  German  move- 
ment in  favour  of  a  war  of  aggression,  it  seems  to  me  it 
would  have  been  madness  on  our  part  to  have  sat  with 


18  THE  WAR  OF  DEMOCRACY 

hands  folded  while  Germany  removed  the  Continental 
obstacles  in  the  way  of  her  laying  siege  to  the  British 
Empire. 

"In  the  best  of  circumstances,  we  are  very  near  the 
striking  power  of  Germany.  I  do  not  think  we  possibly 
could  have  permitted  that  striking  power  to  come  still 
nearer  and  absorb  the  States  nearest  to  us  without  a 
desperate  attempt  to  prevent  it;  but  the  attack  upon 
Belgium  gave  us  no  time  for  thought  or  choice;  we  had 
to  resist  the  violation  of  the  treaty  and  the  wrong  done 
to  a  weaker  State  or  we  should  have  been  disgraced." 


II 
NEUTRAL  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAR 

By  JAMES  BRYCE  (VISCOUNT  BRYCE) 

Author  of  "  The  Holy  Roman  Empire, "  "  The  American  Commonwealth,"  etc. 
Formerly  Ambassador  to  the  United  States. 


II 

NEUTRAL  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAR 

THE  present  war  has  had  some  unexpected  conse- 
quences. It  has  called  the  attention  of  the 
world  outside  Germany  to  some  amazing 
doctrines  proclaimed  there,  which  strike  at  the  root  of 
all  international  morality,  as  well  as  of  all  international 
law,  and  which  threaten  a  return  to  the  primitive 
savagery  when  every  tribe  was  wont  to  plunder  and 
massacre  its  neighbours. 

These  doctrines  may  be  found  set  forth  in  the 
widely  circulated  book  of  General  von  Bernhardi, 
entitled  "Germany  and  the  Next  War,"  published  in 
1911,  and  professing  to  be  mainly  based  on  the  teach- 
ings of  the  famous  professor  of  history,  Heinrich  von 
Treitschke. 

To  readers  in  other  countries,  and,  I  trust,  to  most 
readers  in  Germany  also,  they  will  appear  to  be  an 
outburst  of  militarism  run  mad,  the  product  of  a 
brain  intoxicated  by  the  love  of  war  and  by  super- 
heated national  self -consciousness. 

They  would  have  deserved  little  notice,  much  less 
refutation,  but  for  one  deplorable  fact — viz.:  that 
action  has  recently  been  taken  by  the  Government  of 
a  great  nation  (though,  as  we  venture  to  hope,  without 
the  approval  of  that  nation)  which  is  consonant  with 
them,  and  seems  to  imply  a  belief  in  their  soundness. 

21 


<M      NEUTRAL  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAR 

This  fact  is  the  conduct  of  the  German  Imperial 
Government,  in  violating  the  neutrality  of  Belgium, 
which  Prussia,  as  well  as  Great  Britain  and  France, 
had  solemnly  guaranteed  by  a  treaty  (made  in  1839 
and  renewed  in  1870);  in  invading  Belgium  when 
she  refused  to  allow  her  armies  to  pass,  although 
France,  the  other  belligerent,  had  solemnly  under- 
taken not  to  enter  Belgium;  and  in  treating  the  Bel- 
gian cities  and  people,  against  whom  she  had  no 
cause  of  quarrel,  with  a  harshness  unprecedented  in 
the  history  of  modern  European  warfare. 

What  are  these  doctrines?  I  do  not  for  a  moment 
attribute  them  to  the  learned  class  in  Germany,  for 
whom  I  have  profound  respect,  recognizing  their 
immense  services  to  science  and  learning;  nor  to  the 
bulk  of  the  civil  administration,  a  body  whose  capacity 
and  uprightness  are  known  to  all  the  world;  and 
least  of  all  to  the  German  people  generally.  That 
the  latter  hold  no  such  views  appears  from  General 
Bernhardi's  own  words,  for  he  repeatedly  complains 
of,  and  deplores  the  pacific  tendencies  of,  his  fellow- 
countrymen.* 

Nevertheless,  the  fact  that  the  action  referred  to, 
which  these  doctrines  seem  to  have  prompted,  and 
which  cannot  be  justified  except  by  them,  has  been 
actually  taken,  and  has  thus  brought  into  this  war 
Great  Britain,  whose  interests  and  feelings  made  her 
desire  peace,  renders  it  proper  to  call  attention  to 
them  and  to  all  that  they  involve. 

I  have  certainly  no  prejudice  in  the  matter,  for  I 

*See  pp.  10-14  of  English  translation  and  note  the  phrase  "Aspirations  for  peace 
seem  to  poison  the  soul  of  the  German  people." 


NEUTRAL  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAR      23 

have  been  one  of  those  who  for  many  years  laboured 
to  promote  good  relations  between  Germans  and 
Englishmen,  peoples  that  ought  to  be  friends,  and 
that  never  before  had  been  enemies,  and  I  had  hoped 
and  believed  till  the  beginning  of  August  last  that 
there  would  be  no  war,  because  Belgian  neutrality 
would  be  respected. 

Nor  was  it  only  for  the  sake  of  Britain  and  Ger- 
many that  the  English  friends  of  peace  sought  to 
maintain  good  feeling.  We  had  hoped,  as  some 
leading  German  statesmen  had  hoped,  that  a  friendli- 
ness with  Germany  might  enable  Britain,  with  the 
cooperation  of  the  United  States  (our  closest  friends), 
to  mitigate  the  long  antagonism  of  Germany  and  of 
France,  with  whom  we  were  already  on  good  terms, 
and  to  so  improve  their  relations  as  to  secure  the  general 
peace  of  Europe. 

Into  the  causes  which  frustrated  these  efforts  and 
so  suddenly  brought  on  this  war  I  will  not  enter. 
Many  others  have  dealt  with  them.  Moreover,  the 
facts,  at  least  as  we  in  England  see  and  believe  them, 
and  as  the  documents  seem  to  prove  them  to  be, 
appear  not  to  be  known  to  the  German  people,  and 
the  motives  of  the  chief  actors  have  not  yet  been  fully 
ascertained. 

One  thing,  however,  I  can  confidently  declare. 
It  was  neither  commercial  rivalry  nor  jealousy  of 
German  power  that  brought  Britain  into  the  field. 
Nor  was  there  any  hatred  in  the  British  people  for 
Germany,  nor  any  wish  to  break  German  power. 
Even  now,  we  have  no  enmity  to  the  German 
people.  The  leading  political  thinkers  and  historians 


24      NEUTRAL  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAR 

of  England  had  given  hearty  sympathy  to  the 
efforts  made  by  the  German  people  (from  1815  to 
1866  and  1870)  to  attain  political  unity,  as  they 
had  sympathized  with  the  parallel  efforts  of  the 
Italians. 

The  two  peoples,  German  and  British,  were  of 
kindred  race,  and  linked  by  many  ties.  In  both 
countries  there  were  doubtless  some  persons  who 
desired  war,  and  whose  writings,  apparently  designed 
to  provoke  it,  did  much  to  misrepresent  the  general 
national  sentiment.  But  these  persons  were,  as  I 
believe,  a  small  minority  in  both  countries. 

So  far  as  Britain  was  concerned,  it  was  the  invasion 
of  Belgium  that  arrested  all  efforts  to  avert  war,  and 
made  the  friends  of  peace  themselves  join  in  holding 
that  the  duty  of  fulfilling  their  treaty  obligations  to 
a  weak  State  was  paramount  to  every  other  con- 
sideration. 

I  return  to  the  doctrines  set  forth  by  General  von 
Bernhardi,  and  apparently  accepted  by  the  military 
caste  to  which  he  belongs.  Briefly  summed  up,  they 
are  as  follows.  His  own  words  are  used,  except  when 
it  becomes  necessary  to  abridge  a  lengthened  argu- 
ment:— 

War  is  in  itself  a  good  thing.  "It  is  a  biological 
necessity  of  the  first  importance"  (p.  18). 

"The  inevitableness,  the  idealism,  the  blessings 
of  war,  as  an  indispensable  and  stimulating  law 
of  development  must  be  repeatedly  emphasized" 
(p.  37). 

"War  is  the  greatest  factor  in  the  furtherance  of 
culture  and  power." 


NEUTRAL  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAR     25 

"Efforts  to  secure  peace  are  extraordinarily  detri- 
mental as  soon  as  they  influence  politics"  (p.  28). 

"Fortunately  these  efforts  can  never  attain  their 
ultimate  objects  in  a  world  bristling  with  arms,  where 
a  healthy  egotism  still  directs  the  policy  of  most 
countries.  'God  will  see  to  it,'  says  Treitschke, 
'that  war  always  recurs  as  a  drastic  medicine  for  the 
human  race'"  (p.  36). 

"Efforts  directed  toward  the  abolition  of  war  are 
not  only  foolish,  but  absolutely  immoral,  and  must 
be  stigmatized  as  unworthy  of  the  human  race" 
(p.  34). 

Courts  of  arbitration  are  pernicious  delusions.  "The 
whole  idea  represents  a  presumptuous  encroachment 
on  the  natural  laws  of  development  which  can  only 
lead  to  the  most  disastrous  consequences  for  humanity 
generally"  (p.  34). 

"The  maintenance  of  peace  never  can  be  or  may 
be  the  goal  of  a  policy"  (p.  25). 

"Efforts  for  peace  would,  if  they  attained  their 
goal,  lead  to  geneal  degeneration,  as  happens  every- 
where in  Nature,  where  the  struggle  for  existence  is 
eliminated"  (p.  35). 

Huge  armaments  are  in  themselves  desirable.  "  They 
are  the  most  necessary  precondition  of  our  nat:onal 
health"  (p.  11). 

:<The  end-all  and  be-all  of  a  State  is  Power,  and 
he  who  is  not  man  enough  to  look  this  truth  in  the 
face  should  not  meddle  with  politics"  (Quoted  from 
Treitschke  Politik  (p.  45). 

"The  State's  highest  moral  duty  is  to  increase  its 
power"  (pp.  45-6). 


26      NEUTRAL  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAR 

"The  State  is  justified  in  making  conquests  when- 
ever its  own  advantage  seems  to  require  additional 
territory"  (p.  46). 

"Self-preservation  is  the  State's  highest  ideal," 
and  justifies  whatever  action  it  may  take,  if  that 
action  be  conducive  to  the  end. 

The  State  is  the  sole  judge  of  the  morality  of  its 
own  action.  It  is,  in  fact,  above  morality,  or,  in 
other  words,  whatever  is  necessary  is  moral. 

"Recognized  rights  (i.  e.,  treaty  rights)  are  never 
absolute  rights;  they  are  of  human  origin,  and  there- 
fore imperfect  and  variable.  There  are  conditions  in 
which  they  do  not  correspond  to  the  actual  truth 
of  things;  in  this  case  the  infringement  of  the  right 
appears  morally  justified"  (p.  49).  In  fact,  the  State 
is  a  law  to  itself. 

"Weak  nations  have  not  the  same  right  to  live  as 
the  powerful  and  vigorous  nation"  (p.  34). 

"Any  action  in  favour  of  collective  humanity 
outside  the  limits  of  the  State  and  nationality  is 
impossible"  (p.  25). 

These  are  startling  propositions,  though  propounded 
as  practically  axiomatic.  They  are  not  new,  for 
twenty-two  centuries  ago  the  sophist  Thrasymachus 
in  Plato's  Republic  argued  (Socrates  refuting  him) 
that  Justice  is  nothing  more  than  the  advantage  of 
the  Stronger,  i.  e.,  Might  is  Right.* 

The  most  startling  among  them  is  the  denial  that 
there  are  any  duties  owed  by  the  State  to  Humanity, 
except  that  of  imposing  its  own  superior  civilization 
upon  as  large  a  part  of  humanity  as  possible,  and  the 

*Plato  lays  down  that  the  end  for  which  a  State  exists  is  Justice. 


NEUTRAL  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAR      27 

denial  of  the  duty  of  observing  treaties.  Treaties  are 
only  so  much  paper.* 

To  modern  German  writers  the  State  is  a  much 
more  tremendous  entity  than  it  is  to  Englishmen  or 
Americans.  It  is  a  supreme  power  with  a  sort  of 
mystic  sanctity,  a  power  conceived  of,  as  it  were,  self- 
created,  a  force  altogether  distinct  from,  and  superior 
to,  the  persons  who  compose  it. 

But  a  State  is,  after  all,  only  so  many  individuals 
organized  under  a  government.  It  is  no  wiser,  no 
more  righteous,  than  the  human  beings  of  whom  it 
consists,  and  whom  it  sets  up  to  govern  it. 

Has  the  State  then  no  morality,  no  responsibility? 

If  it  is  right  for  persons  united  as  citizens  into  a 
State  to  rob  and  murder  for  their  collective  advantage 
by  their  collective  power,  why  should  it  be  wicked 
for  the  citizens  as  individuals  to  do  so?  Does  their 
moral  responsibility  cease  when  and  because  they  act 
together?  Most  legal  systems  hold  that  there  are 
acts  which  one  man  may  lawfully  do  which  become 
unlawful  if  done  by  a  number  of  men  conspiring 
together.  But  now  it  would  seem  that  what  would 
be  a  crime  in  persons  as  individuals  is  high  policy  for 
those  persons  united  in  a  State.f 

There  are,  of  course,  cases  in  which  a  treaty  may  become  obsolete  by  a  complete 
change  in  the  conditions  under  which  it  was  made,  as  the  treaties  of  Vienna  of  1815 
had  become  obsolete  sixty  years  afterward.  But  the  case  of  Belgium  was  not  such  a 
case,  nor  can  so-called  "military  necessity"  ever  justify  violation.  The  Hague  Con- 
vention of  1907  expressly  provides  that  belligerents  must  respect  neutral  territory. 

fGeneral  Bernhardi  refers  approvingly  to  Machiavelli  as  "  the  first  who  declared  that 
the  keynote  of  every  policy  was  the  advancement  of  power."  The  Florentine,  how- 
ever, was  not  the  preacher  of  doctrines  with  which  he  sought,  like  the  General,  to  edify 
his  contemporaries.  He  merely  took  his  Italian  world  as  he  saw  it.  He  did  not  at- 
tempt to  buttress  his  doctrines  by  false  philosophy,  false  history,  and  false  science. 


28      NEUTRAL  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAR 

Is  there  no  such  thing  as  a  common  humanity? 
Are  there  no  duties  owed  to  it?  Is  there  none  of 
that  "decent  respect  to  the  opinion  of  mankind" 
which  the  framers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
recognized;  no  sense  that  even  the  greatest  States 
are  amenable  to  the  sentiment  of  the  civilized  world? 

Let  us  see  how  these  doctrines  affect  the  smaller 
and  weaker  States  which  have  hitherto  lived  in  com- 
parative security  beside  the  Great  Powers. 

They  will  be  absolutely  at  the  mercy  of  the  stronger. 
Even  if  protected  by  treaties  guaranteeing  their  neu- 
trality and  independence  they  will  not  be  safe,  for 
treaty  obligations  are  worthless  "when  they  do  not 
correspond  to  facts,"  i.  e.,  when  the  strong  Power 
finds  that  they  stand  in  its  way.  Its  interests  are 
paramount. 

If  a  State  has  valuable  minerals,  as  Sweden  has 
iron,  and  Belgium  coal,  and  Rumania  oil,  or  if  it 
has  abundance  of  water  power,  like  Norway,  Sweden, 
and  Switzerland,  or  if  it  holds  the  mouth  of  a  navi- 
gable river  the  upper  course  of  which  belongs  to 
another  nation,  the  great  State  may  conquer  and 
annex  that  small  State  as  soon  as  it  finds  that  it 
needs  the  minerals,  or  the  water  power,  or  the  river 
mouth. 

It  has  the  Powers,  and  Power  gives  Right.  The 
interests,  the  sentiments,  the  patriotism  and  love  of 
independence  of  the  small  people  go  for  nothing. 

Civilization  has  turned  back  upon  itself,  culture  is 
to  expand  its  domain  by  barbaric  force.  Governments 
derive  their  authority,  not  from  the  consent  of  the 
governed,  but  from  the  weapons  of  the  conqueror. 


NEUTRAL  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAR      29 

Law  and  morality  between  nations  have  vanished. 
Herodotus  tells  us  that  the  Scythians  worshipped  as 
their  God  a  naked  sword.  That  is  the  deity  to  be 
installed  in  the  place  once  held  by  the  God  of  Chris- 
tianity, the  God  of  righteousness  and  mercy. 

States,  mostly  despotic  States,  have  sometimes 
applied  parts  of  this  system  of  doctrine,  but  none  has 
proclaimed  it.  The  Romans,  conquerors  of  the  world, 
were  not  a  scrupulous  people,  but  even  they  stopped 
short  of  these  principles.  Certainly  they  never  set 
them  up  as  an  ideal.  Neither  did  those  magnificent 
Saxon  and  Swabian  emperors  of  the  Middle  Ages 
whose  fame  General  von  Bernhardi  is  fond  of  recalling. 
They  did  not  enter  Italy  as  conquerors,  claiming  her 
by  the  right  of  the  strongest.  They  came  on  the 
faith  of  a  legal  title,  which,  however  fantastic  it  may 
seem  to  us  to-day,  the  Italians  themselves — and,  in- 
deed, the  whole  of  Latin  Christendom — admitted. 
Dante,  the  greatest  and  most  patriotic  of  Italians, 
welcomed  the  Emperor  Henry  the  Seventh  into  Italy, 
and  wrote  a  famous  book  to  prove  his  claims,  vindicat- 
ing them  on  the  ground  that  he,  as  the  heir  of  Rome, 
stood  for  Law  and  Right  and  Peace.  The  noblest  title 
which  those  emperors  chose  to  bear  was  that  of  7m- 
perator  Pacificus.  In  the  Middle  Ages,  when  men  were 
always  fighting,  they  appreciated  the  blessings  of  war 
much  less  than  does  General  Bernhardi,  and  they 
valued  peace,  not  war,  as  a  means  to  civilization  and 
culture.  They  had  not  learnt  in  the  school  of  Treitschke 
that  peace  means  decadence  and  war  is  the  true  civiliz- 
ing influence. 

The  doctrines  above  stated    are   (as  I  have  tried 


30      NEUTRAL  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAR 

to  point  out)  well  calculated  to  alarm  the  small  States 
which  prize  their  liberty  and  their  individuality,  and 
have  been  thriving  under  the  safeguard  of  treaties. 
But  there  are  also  other  considerations  affecting  those 
States  which  ought  to  appeal  to  men  in  all  countries, 
to  strong  nations  as  well  as  weak  nations. 

The  small  States,  whose  absorption  is  now  threat- 
ened, have  been  potent  and  useful — perhaps  the  most 
potent  and  useful — factors  in  the  advance  of  civiliza- 
tion. It  is  in  them  and  by  them  that  most  of  what 
is  most  precious  in  religion,  in  philosophy,  in  literature, 
in  science,  and  in  art  has  been  produced. 

The  first  great  thoughts  that  brought  man  into 
a  true  relation  with  God  came  from  a  tiny  people, 
inhabiting  a  country  smaller  than  Denmark.  The 
religions  of  mighty  Babylon  and  populous  Egypt 
have  vanished:  the  religion  of  Israel  remains  in  its 
earlier  as  well  as  in  that  later  form  which  has  over- 
spread the  world. 

The  Greeks  were  a  small  people,  not  united  in  one 
great  State,  but  scattered  over  coasts  and  among  hills 
in  petty  city  communities,  each  with  its  own  life, 
slender  in  numbers,  but  eager,  versatile,  intense. 
They  gave  us  the  richest,  the  most  varied,  and  the 
most  stimulating  of  all  literatures. 

When  poetry  and  art  reappeared,  after  the  long 
night  of  the  Dark  Ages,  their  most  splendid  blossoms 
flowered  in  the  small  republics  of  Italy. 

In  modern  Europe  what  do  we  not  owe  to  little 
Switzerland,  lighting  the  torch  of  freedom  600  years 
ago,  and  keeping  it  alight  through  all  the  centuries 
when  despotic  monarchies  held  the  rest  of  the  European 


NEUTRAL  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAR      31 

Continent;  and  what  to  free  Holland,  with  her  great 
men  of  learning  and  her  painters  surpassing  those  of 
all  other  countries  save  Italy? 

So  the  small  Scandinavian  nations  have  given  to  the 
world  famous  men  of  science,  from  Linnseus  downward, 
poets  like  Tegner  and  Bjornson,  scholars  like  Madvig, 
dauntless  explorers  like  Fridjof  Nansen.  England 
had,  in  the  age  of  Shakespeare,  Bacon,  and  Milton, 
a  population  little  larger  than  that  of  Bulgaria 
to-day.  The  United  States,  in  the  days  of  Washing- 
ton and  Franklin  and  Jefferson  and  Hamilton  and 
Marshall,  counted  fewer  inhabitants  than  Denmark 
or  Greece. 

In  the  two  most  brilliant  generations  of  German 
literature  and  thought,  the  age  of  Kant  and  Lessing 
and  Goethe,  of  Hegel  and  Beethoven  and  Schiller  and 
Fichte,  there  was  no  real  German  State  at  all,  but  a 
congeries  of  principalities  and  free  cities,  independent 
centres  of  intellectual  life,  in  which  letters  and  science 
produced  a  richer  crop  than  the  two  succeeding  gene- 
rations have  raised,  just  as  Britain,  also  with  eight 
times  the  population  of  the  year  1600,  has  had  no  more 
Shakespeares  or  Mil  tons. 

No  notion  is  more  palpably  contradicted  by  history 
than  that  relied  on  by  the  school  to  which  General 
Bernhardi  belongs,  that  "culture" — literary,  scien- 
tific, and  artistic — flourishes  best  in  great  military 
States.  The  decay  of  art  and  literature  in  the  Roman 
world  began  just  when  Rome's  military  power  had 
made  that  world  one  great  and  ordered  State.  The 
opposite  view  would  be  much  nearer  the  truth;  though 
one  must  admit  that  no  general  theory  regarding  the 


32      NEUTRAL  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAR 

relations  of  art  and  letters  to  Governments  and  political 
conditions  has  ever  yet  been  proved  to  be  sound.* 

The  world  is  already  too  uniform,  and  is  becoming 
more  uniform  every  day.  A  few  leading  languages, 
a  few  forms  of  civilization,  a  few  types  of  character, 
are  spreading  out  from  the  seven  or  eight  greatest 
States  and  extinguishing  the  weaker  languages,  forms, 
and  types. 

Although  the  great  States  are  stronger  and  more 
populous  their  peoples  are  not  necessarily  more  gifted, 
and  the  extinction  of  the  minor  languages  and  types 
would  be  a  misfortune  for  the  world's  future  develop- 
ment. 

We  may  not  be  able  to  arrest  the  forces  which 
seem  to  be  making  for  that  extinction,  but  we  certainly 
ought  not  to  strengthen  them.  Rather  we  ought  to 
maintain  and  defend  the  smaller  States,  and  to  favour 
the  rise  and  growth  of  new  peoples.  Not  merely 
because  they  were  delivered  from  the  tyranny  of 
Sultans  like  Abdul  Hamid  did  the  intellect  of  Europe 
welcome  the  successively  won  liberations  of  Greece, 
Servia,  Bulgaria,  and  Montenegro;  it  was  also  in  the 
hope  that  those  countries  would  in  time  develop  out  of 
their  present  relatively  crude  conditions  new  types 
of  culture,  new  centres  of  productive  intellectual 
life. 

General   Bernhardi    invokes   history,    the   ultimate 

*General  Bernhardi 's  knowledge  of  current  history  may  be  estimated  by  the 
fact  that  he  assumes  (1)  that  trade  rivalry  makes  a  war  probable  between  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States!  (2)  that  he  believes  the  Indian  princes  and  peoples 
likely  to  revolt  against  Britain  should  she  be  involved  in  war!!  and  (3)  that  he 
expects  her  self-governing  Colonies  to  take  such  an  opportunity  of  severing  their 
connection  with  her!!! 


NEUTRAL  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAR      33 

court  of  appeal.  He  appeals  to  Caesar.  To  Caesar  let 
him  go.  Die  Weltgeschichte  ist  das  Weltgericht.* 

History  declares  that  no  nation,  however  great,  is 
entitled  to  try  to  impose  its  type  of  civilization  on 
others.  No  race,  not  even  the  Teutonic  or  the  Anglo- 
Saxon,  is  entitled  to  claim  the  leadership  of  humanity. 
Each  people  has  in  its  time  contributed  something 
that  was  distinctively  its  own,  and  the  world  is  far 
richer  thereby  than  if  any  one  race,  however  gifted, 
had  established  a  permanent  ascendancy. 

We  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  do  not  claim  for  our- 
selves, any  more  than  we  admit  in  others,  any  right 
to  dominate  by  force  or  to  impose  our  own  type  of 
civilization  on  less  powerful  races.  Perhaps  we  have 
not  that  assured  conviction  of  its  superiority  which 
the  school  of  General  Bernhardi  expresses  for  the 
Teutons  of  North  Germany.  We  know  how  much  we 
owe,  even  within  our  own  islands,  to  the  Celtic  race. 
And  though  we  must  admit  that  peoples  of  Anglo- 
Saxon  stock  have,  like  others,  made  some  mistakes 
and  sometimes  abused  their  strength,  let  it  be  re- 
membered what  have  been  the  latest  acts  they  have 
done  abroad. 

The  United  States  have  twice  withdrawn  their 
troops  from  Cuba,  which  they  could  easily  have 
retained.  They  have  resisted  all  temptations  to  annex 
any  part  of  the  territories  of  Mexico,  in  which  the 
lives  and  property  of  their  citizens  were  for  three 
years  in  constant  danger.  So  Britain  also,  six  years 
ago,  restored  the  amplest  self-government  to  the  two 
South  African  Republics  (having  already  agreed  to 

*World  History  is  the  World  tribunal. 


34      NEUTRAL  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAR 

the  maintenance  on  equal  terms  of  the  Dutch  lan- 
guage), and  the  citizens  of  those  Republics,  which 
were  in  arms  against  her  thirteen  years  ago,  have  now 
spontaneously  come  forward  to  support  her  by  arms, 
under  the  gallant  leader  who  then  commanded  the 
Boers.  And  I  may  add  that  one  reason  why  the 
princes  of  India  have  rallied  so  promptly  and  heartily 
to  Britain  in  this  war  is  because  for  many  years  past 
we  have  avoided  annexing  the  territories  of  those 
princes,  allowing  them  to  adopt  heirs  when  successors 
of  their  own  families  failed,  and  leaving  to  them  as 
much  as  possible  of  the  ordinary  functions  of  govern- 
ment. 

It  is  only  vulgar  minds  that  mistake  bigness  for 
greatness,  for  greatness  is  of  the  soul,  not  of  the  body. 
In  the  judgment  >which  history  will  hereafter  pass 
upon  the  forty  centuries  of  recorded  progress  toward 
civilization  that  now  lie  behind  us,  what  are  the 
tests  it  will  apply  to  determine  the  true  greatness 
of  a  people? 

Not  population,  not  territory,  not  wealth,  not 
military  power.  Rather  will  history  ask:  What  ex- 
amples of  lofty  character  and  unselfish  devotion  to 
honour  and  duty  has  a  people  given?  What  has  it 
done  to  increase  the  volume  of  knowledge?  What 
thoughts  and  what  ideals  of  permanent  value  and 
unexhausted  fertility  has  it  bequeathed  to  mankind? 
What  works  has  it  produced  in  poetry,  music,  and 
the  other  arts  to  be  an  unfailing  source  of  enjoyment 
to  posterity? 

The  smaller  peoples  need  not  fear  the  application  of 
such  tests.  * 


NEUTRAL  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAR      35 

The  world  advances  not,  as  the  Bernhardi  school 
suppose,  only  or  even  mainly  by  fighting.  It  ad- 
vances mainly  by  thinking  and  by  a  process  of  re- 
ciprocal teaching  and  learning,  by  a  continuous  and 
unconscious  cooperation  of  all  its  strongest  and 
finest  minds. 

Each  race — Hellenic,  Italic,  Celtic,  and  Teutonic, 
Iberian,  and  Slavonic — has  something  to  give,  each 
something  to  learn;  and  when  their  blood  is  blent 
the  mixed  stock  may  combine  the  gifts  of  both. 

The  most  progressive  races  have  been  those  who 
combined  willingness  to  learn  with  a  strength  which 
enabled  them  to  receive  without  loss  to  their  own 
quality,  retaining  their  primal  vigour,  but  entering 
into  the  labours  of  others,  as  the  Teutons  who  settled 
within  the  dominions  of  Rome  profited  by  the  lessons 
of  the  old  civilization. 

Let  me  disclaim  once  more  before  I  close  any  inten- 
tion to  attribute  to  the  German  people  the  principles 
set  forth  by  the  school  of  Treitschke  and  Bernhardi, 
their  hatred  of  peace  and  arbitration,  their  disregard 
of  treaty  obligations,  their  scorn  for  the  weaker  peoples. 

We  in  England  would  feel  an  even  deeper  sadness 
than  weighs  upon  us  now  if  we  could  suppose  that 
such  principles  had  been  embraced  by  a  nation  whose 
thinkers  have  done  so  much  for  human  progress  and 
who  have  produced  so  many  shining  examples  of 
Christian  saintliness. 

But  when  those  principles  have  been  ostentatiously 
proclaimed,  when  a  peaceful  neutral  country  which 
the  other  belligerent  had  undertaken  to  respect  has 
been  invaded  and  treated  as  Belgium  has  been  treated, 


36      NEUTRAL  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAR 

and  when  attempts  are  made  to  justify  these  deeds 
as  incidental  to  a  campaign  for  civilization  and  cul- 
ture, it  becomes  necessary  to  point  out  how  untrue 
and  how  pernicious  such  principles  are. 

What  are  the  teachings  of  history,  history  to  which 
General  Bernhardi  is  fond  of  appealing?  That  war 
has  been  the  constant  handmaid  of  tyranny  and  the 
source  of  more  than  half  the  miseries  of  man.  That 
although  some  wars  have  been  necessary,  and  have 
given  occasion  for  the  display  of  splendid  heroism- 
wars  of  defence  against  aggression,  or  to  succour  the 
oppressed — most  wars  have  been  needless  or  unjust. 
That  the  mark  of  an  advancing  civilization  has  been  the 
substitution  of  friendship  for  hatred  and  of  peaceful 
for  warlike  ideals.  That  small  peoples  have  done  and 
can  do  as  much  for  the  common  good  of  humanity  as 
large  peoples.  That  Treaties  must  be  observed,  for 
what  are  they  but  records  of  national  faith  solemnly 
pledged,  and  what  could  bring  mankind  more  surely 
and  swiftly  back  to  that  reign  of  violence  and  terror 
from  which  it  has  been  slowly  rising  for  the  last  ten 
centuries  than  the  destruction  of  trust  in  the  plighted 
faith  of  nations? 

No  event  has  brought  out  that  essential  unity 
which  now  exists  in  the  world  so  forcibly  as  this  war 
has  done,  for  no  event  has  ever  so  affected  every  part 
of  the  world.  Four  continents  are  involved — the 
whole  of  the  Old  World — and  the  New  World  suffers 
grievously  in  its  trade,  industry,  and  finance.  Thus 
the  whole  world  is  interested  in  preventing  the  re- 
currence of  such  a  calamity;  and  there  is  a  general 
feeling  throughout  the  world  that  an  effort  must  be 


NEUTRAL  NATIONS  AND  THE  WAR     37 

made  to  remove  the  causes  which  have  brought  it 
upon  us. 

We  are  told  that  armaments  must  be  reduced,  that 
the  baleful  spirit  of  militarism  must  be  quenched, 
that  the  peoples  must  everywhere  be  admitted  to  a 
fuller  share  in  the  control  of  foreign  policy,  that 
efforts  must  be  made  to  establish  a  sort  of  League  of 
Concord — some  system  of  international  relations  and 
reciprocal  peace  alliances  by  which  the  weaker  nations 
may  be  protected,  and  under  which  differences  between 
nations  may  be  adjusted  by  Courts  of  arbitration  and 
conciliation  of  wider  scope  than  those  that  now  exist. 

All  these  things  are  desirable.  But  no  scheme  for 
preventing  future  wars  will  have  any  chance  of  suc- 
cess unless  it  rests  upon  the  assurance  that  the  States 
which  enter  into  it  will  loyally  and  steadfastly  abide 
by  it,  and  that  each  and  all  of  them  will  join  in  coercing 
by  their  overwhelming  united  strength  any  State 
which  may  disregard  the  obligations  it  has  undertaken. 

The  faith  of  treaties  is  the  only  solid  foundation 
on  which  a  Temple  of  Peace  can  be  built  up. 


m 

A  FREE  EUROPE 

Being  An  Interview  With 
The  Rt.  Hon.  SIR  EDWARD  GREY,  BART.,  K.G. 

By  EDWARD  PRICE  BELL 

of  the  "Chicago  Daily  News" 


Ill 

INTERVIEW  WITH   SIR   EDWARD   GREY 

THE  Rt.  Hon.  Sir  Edward  Grey,  K.  G.,  M.  P., 
British  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs, 
talking  with  Mr.  Edward  Price  Bell,  of  the 
Chicago  Daily  News,  at  luncheon  in  the  statesman's 
temporary  London  home,  on  Monday,  April  10,  said 
substantially  this: — 

"Prussian  tyranny  over  western  Europe,  including 
these  islands,  our  people  will  not  stand.  The  pledges 
given  by  Mr.  Asquith  as  regards  the  restoration  of 
Belgium  and  Serbia  shall  be  kept.  We  have  signed  a 
pact  to  make  peace  only  in  concert  with  our  Allies; 
this  pact,  I  need  not  say,  we  shall  honour,  strictly, 
and  to  the  end.  What  we  and  our  Allies  are  fighting 
for  is  a  free  Europe.  We  want  a  Europe  free,  not  only 
from  the  domination  of  one  nationality  by  another, 
but  from  hectoring  diplomacy  and  the  peril  of  war, 
free  from  the  constant  rattling  of  the  sword  in  the 
scabbard,  from  perpetual  talk  of  shining  armour  and 
warlords.  In  fact,"  added  Sir  Edward  reflectively,  "we 
feel  we  are  fighting  for  equal  rights;  for  law,  justice, 
peace;  for  civilization,  throughout  the  world,  as  against 
brute  force  which  knows  no  restraint  and  no  mercy." 

To  interview  Sir  Edward  Grey,  one  need  hardly 
say,  is  a  unique  privilege  and  honour.  These  came 

41 


42  A  FREE  EUROPE 

to  myself  after  many  months  of  battling  with  the 
immemorial  prejudice  of  the  British  public  man  of 
high  responsibility  against  the  journalist  as  a  journal- 
ist. It  is  a  fact,  I  believe,  that  Sir  Edward  Grey- 
one  of  the  greatest  figures  of  the  world  war,  and  one  of 
the  most  famous  men  in  modern  political  history — 
never  was  interviewed,  in  the  journalistic  sense,  before. 
It  is  also  true,  I  think,  that  in  the  long  annals  of  the 
British  Foreign  Office  this  is  the  first  instance  in  which 
its  Chief  has  consented  to  speak  to  his  fellow-men 
through  the  mediumship  of  a  correspondent. 

What  is  the  most  amazing  fact  about  this  man? 

To  my  mind,  it  is  that  the  Germans  regard  him  as 
the  Mephistopheles  of  the  "Faust"  of  Armageddon 
— scoffing,  sardonic,  crafty,  fiendish.  One  of  their 
appellations  for  him  is  "Satan."  They  feign  to  be- 
lieve— possibly  do  believe — that  his  main  object  in 
life  has  been  to  brew  trouble,  to  bring  about  war, 
especially  to  effect  the  strangulation,  or  asphyxiation,  of 
Germany.  This  of  a  man  of  the  most  civilized  type, 
broad  of  vision,  nurtured  in  Liberalism,  a  fly  fisher- 
man, a  tamer  of  birds  and  squirrels,  a  life-long  protago- 
nist of  peace! 

"What  do  you  mean  by  the  phrase,  'destruction 
of  Prussian  militarism'?"  I  asked  Sir  Edward. 

THE   PRUSSIAN   IDEAL 

"What  Prussia  proposes,  as  we  understand  her,  is 
Prussian  supremacy.  She  proposes  a  Europe  modelled 
and  ruled  by  Prussians.  She  is  to  dispose  of  the 
liberties  of  her  neighbours,  and  of  us  all.  We  say 
that  life  on  these  terms  is  intolerable.  And  this  also 


A  FREE  EUROPE  43 

is  what  France  and  Italy  and  Russia  say.  We  are 
not  only  fighting  Prussia's  attempt  to  do,  in  this  in- 
stance, to  all  of  Europe  what  she  did  to  non-Prussian 
Germany,  but  fighting  the  German  idea  of  the  whole- 
sorneness,  almost  the  desirability,  of  ever-recurrent 
war.  Prussia  under  Bismarck  deliberately  and  ad- 
mittedly made  three  wars.  We  wanted  a  settled  peace 
in  Europe  and  throughout  the  world,  which  will  be  a 
guarantee  against  aggressive  war. 

"Germany's  philosophy  is  that  a  settled  peace  spells 
disintegration,  degeneracy,  the  sacrifice  of  the  heroic 
qualities  in  human  character.  Such  a  philosophy,  if 
it  is  to  survive  as  a  practical  force,  means  eternal 
apprehension  and  unrest.  It  means  ever-increasing 
armaments.  It  means  arresting  the  development  of 
mankind  along  the  lines  of  culture  and  humanity. 

THE    BRITISH    IDEAL 

"  We  are  fighting  this  idea.  We  do  not  believe  in  war 
as  the  preferable  method  of  settling  disputes  between 
nations.  When  nations  cannot  see  eye  to  eye,  when  they 
quarrel,  when  there  is  a  threat  of  war,  we  believe  the 
controversy  should  be  settled  by  methods  other  than 
those  of  war.  Such  other  methods  are  always  success- 
ful when  there  is  good  will  and  no  aggressive  spirit. 

"We  believe  in  negotiation.  We  have  faith  in 
international  conferences.  We  proposed  a  conference 
before  this  war  broke  out.  We  urged  Germany  to 
agree  to  a  conference.  Germany  declined  to  do  so. 
Then  I  requested  Germany  to  select  some  form  of 
mediation,  some  method  of  peaceful  settlement,  of 
her  own.  She  would  not  come  forward  with  any  such 


44  A  FREE  EUROPE 

suggestion.  Then  the  Emperor  of  Russia  proposed 
to  Germany  to  send  the  dispute  to  The  Hague  Tribunal. 
There  was  no  response.  Our  proposal  of  a  conference 
was  rejected  by  Germany:  Russia,  France  and  Italy 
all  accepted  it.  Our  proposal  that  Germany  suggest 
some  means  of  peaceful  settlement  met  with  no  suc- 
cess, nor  did  the  Czar's  proposal  of  arbitration.  No 
impartial  judgment  of  any  kind  was  to  be  permitted 
to  enter.  It  was  a  case  of  Europe  submitting  to  the 
Teutonic  will,  or  going  to  war. 

"If  the  conference  in  London  in  the  Balkan  crisis 
in  1912-13  had  been  worked  to  the  disadvantage  of 
Germany  or  her  allies,  the  German  reluctance  for  a 
conference  in  1914  would  have  been  intelligible,  but 
no  more  convincing  pledge  of  fair  play  and  single- 
minded  desire  for  fair  settlement  than  the  conduct  of 
that  conference  in  London  was  ever  given.  And  in 
1914,  after  Serbia  had  accepted  nine  tenths  of  Austria's 
demands,  the  settlement  of  outstanding  questions 
would  have  been  easy.  Russia  ordered  no  general 
mobilization  till  Germany  had  refused  a  conference 
and  till  German  preparations  for  war  were  far  ahead 
of  the  Russians.  Germany  declared  war  on  Russia 
when  Austria  was  showing  every  disposition  to  come  to 
terms;  and  Germany  was  in  fact  at  war  with  Russia 
four  or  five  days  before  Austria,  though  the  quarrel 
at  that  time  was  one  that  primarily  concerned  Austria 
and  not  Germany." 

THE    TWO    METHODS 

After  a  moment's  reflection,  Sir  Edward  continued: 
"These  two  methods  of  settling  international  dis- 


A  FREE  EUROPE  45 

putes — the  method  of  negotiation  and  the  method  of 
war — I  ask  you  to  consider  in  the  light  of  this  struggle. 
Do  we  not  see  the  disaster  of  the  war  method  con- 
clusively shown?  How  much  better  would  have  been 
a  conference,  or  The  Hague,  in  1914,  than  what  has 
happened  since!  Industry  and  commerce  dislocated; 
the  burdens  of  life  heavily  increased;  millions  of 
men  slain,  maimed,  blinded;  international  hatreds 
deepened  and  intensified;  the  very  fabric  of  civilization 
menaced — these  from  the  war  method.  The  confer- 
ence we  proposed,  or  The  Hague  proposed  by  the  Czar, 
would  have  settled  the  quarrel  in  a  little  time — I  think 
a  conference  would  have  settled  it  in  a  week — and 
all  these  calamities  would  have  been  averted.  More- 
over— a  thing  of  vast  importance — we  should  have 
gone  a  long  way  in  laying  the  permanent  foundations 
for  international  peace." 

NEUTRALS   AND    PEACE 

"Do  you  think  neutrals  ever  will  be  able  to  help 
toward  peace?"  I  inquired. 

"The  injustice  done  by  this  war  has  got  to  be  set 
right.  The  Allies  can  tolerate  no  peace  that  leaves  the 
wrongs  of  this  war  unredressed.  When  persons  come 
to  me  with  pacific  counsels,  I  think  they  should  tell 
me  what  sort  of  peace  they  have  in  mind.  They  should 
let  me  know  on  which  side  they  stand,  for  the  opponents 
do  not  agree.  If  they  think,  for  example,  that  Belgium 
was  innocent  of  offence;  that  she  has  been  unspeakably 
wronged;  that  she  should  be  set  up  again  by  those  who 
tore  her  down,  then,  it  seems  to  me,  they  should  say 
so.  Peace  counsels  that  are  purely  abstract  and  make 


46  A  FREE  EUROPE 

no  attempt  to  discriminate  between  the  rights  and 
the  wrongs  of  this  war  are  ineffective,  if  not  irrelevant." 

"  Desire  for  conquest,  lust  for  revenge,  and  jealousy 
of  the  economic  competitor  in  the  world  market," 
I   reminded   Sir   Edward,    "were   suggested   by   Herr 
von  Bethmann-Hollweg  as  'the  three  driving  forces 
of  the  coalition  against  Germany  before  the  war.' ' 

"There  was  no  coalition  against  Germany  before 
the  war,"  answered  Sir  Edward.  "Germany  knew 
there  was  no  coalition  against  her.  We  had  assured 
her,  in  the  most  formal  and  categorical  way,  that  in  no 
circumstances  would  we  be  a  party  to  any  aggression 
against  her.  She  wanted  us  to  pledge  ourselves  to 
unconditional  neutrality — wanted  us  to  declare  that 
no  matter  what  she  did  on  the  Continent  we  should 
not  interfere.  It  is  true  that  she  always  referred  to  a 
possible  war  forced  on  her.  The  trouble  was  that  she 
gave  us  no  test  of  a  war  forced  on  her.  She  remained 
free  to  claim  that  any  war  was  forced  on  her.  She  now 
claims  that  this  war  was  forced  on  her.  I  need  hardly 
remind  you  that  at  the  outset  Italy,  the  third  member 
of  the  Triple  Alliance,  definitely  refused  to  accept  this 
view.  No  one  thought  of  attacking  Germany;  there 
was  not  a  measure  taken  by  any  other  power  that  was 
not  purely  defensive;  the  German  preparations  were 
for  attack  and  were  far  ahead  of  others  on  the  Con- 
tinent." 

BELGIUM   A   BULWARK 

"You  observed  the  German  Chancellor's  recent 
reference  to  Belgium  as  a  'bulwark'?" 

"Belgium  was  a  bulwark — defensive  of  Germany, 


A  FREE  EUROPE  47 

of  France,  and  of  European  peace.  This  bulwark, 
until  Germany  decided  to  make  war,  was  in  no  danger 
from  any  quarter.  In  April,  1913,  we  had  given  re- 
newed assurance  to  Belgium  to  respect  her  neutrality. 
When  war  threatened,  we  asked  France  if  she  would 
adhere  to  her  pledge  to  respect  the  neutrality  of  Bel- 
gium. She  said  'Yes.'  We  asked  Germany  the  same 
question,  and  she  declined  to  answer.  Immediately 
afterward,  in  scorn  of  her  signature,  she  assaulted  and 
destroyed  the  bulwark.  Herr  von  Bethmann-Hollweg 
acknowledged  the  wrong,  pleading  that  'necessity 
knows  no  law,'  and  promised  that  as  soon  as  Germany's 
military  aims  were  realized  she  would  restore  Belgium. 
Now  he  says  there  can  be  no  status  quo  ante,  either  in 
the  east  or  in  the  west.  In  other  words,  Belgium's 
independence  is  gone,  as  Serbia's  and  Montenegro's 
are  gone,  unless  the  Allies  can  set  them  up  again. 

'To  all  this  we  say  to  Germany,  'Recognize  the  prin- 
ciple urged  by  lovers  of  freedom  everywhere:  give  to 
the  nationalities  of  Europe  a  real  freedom,  not  the  so- 
called  freedom  doled  out  to  subject  peoples  by  Prussian 
tyranny,  and  make  reparation  as  far  as  it  can  be  made 
for  the  wrong  done." 

BRITISH   AIMS 

"Should  you  mind  indicating  the  object  of  Britain's 
rapprochements  in  recent  years?"  I  asked. 

"Good  relations  and  an  end  to  quarrels  with  other 
powers.  Going  far  back,  we  had  working  relations 
with  the  Triple  Alliance.  But  we  were  habitually 
in  friction  with  France  or  Russia.  Again  and  again 
it  brought  us  to  the  verge  of  war.  So  we  decided  to 


48  A  FREE  EUROPE 

come  to  an  arrangement  with  France,  and  then  with 
Russia — not  with  any  hostile  intent  toward  Germany, 
or  any  other  power,  but  wholly  to  pave  the  way  to 
permanent  peace.  So,  instead  of  preparing  for  war, 
as  Germany  asserts,  without  a  vestige  of  truth  to  sup- 
port the  assertion,  we  were  endeavouring  to  avoid  war. 
And  German  statesmen  knew  we  were  endeavouring  to 
avoid  war  and  not  to  make  it." 

"  German  statesmen  assert  that  England  is  the  only 
real  obstacle  to  peace." 

"Nobody  wants  peace  more  than  we  want  it.  But 
we  want  a  peace  that  does  justice,  and  a  peace  that 
reestablishes  respect  for  the  public  law  of  the  world. 
Presumably  Germany  would  like  neutrals  to  think  we 
are  applying  pressure  to  keep  France,  Russia,  and  Italy 
in  the  war.  We  are  not.  France,  Russia,  and  Italy 
need  no  urging  to  keep  them  in  the  war.  They  know 
why  they  are  in  the  war.  They  know  they  are  in  it  to 
preserve  everything  that  is  precious  to  nationality. 
It  is  this  knowledge  which  makes  them  determined 
and  unconquerable.  It  is  quite  impossible  for  me  to 
express  to  you  our  admiration  of  the  achievements  of 
our  associates  in  this  struggle.  And  as  is  the  measure 
of  our  admiration,  so  also  will  be  the  measure  of  our 
contribution  to  the  common  cause. 

'There  are  two  statements  that  come  from  German 
sources.  One  is  that  we  are  preventing  the  Allies 
from  making  peace — that  goes  to  the  address  of  neu- 
trals. The  other  is  that  we  are  meditating  separate 
peace  with  Germany  and  intend  to  abandon  our 
Allies — that  goes  to  the  address  of  one  or  other  of  the 
Allies.  Each  statement  is  absolutely  untrue." 


A  FREE  EUROPE  49 

"You  have  noted  that  Herr  von  Bethmann-Hollweg 
affirms  that  Britain  wants  to  destroy  'united  and  free 
Germany." 

"We  never  were  smitten  with  any  such  madness. 
We  want  nothing  of  the  sort,  and  Herr  von  Bethmann- 
Hollweg  knows  we  want  nothing  of  the  sort.  We 
should  be  glad  to  see  the  German  people  free,  as  we 
ourselves  want  to  be  free,  and  as  we  want  the  other 
nationalities  of  Europe  and  of  the  world  to  be  free.  It 
belongs  to  the  rudiments  of  political  science,  it  is 
abundantly  taught  by  history,  that  you  cannot  en- 
slave a  people,  and  make  a  success  of  the  job — that 
you  cannot  kill  a  people's  soul  by  foreign  despotism 
and  brutality.  We  aspire  to  embark  upon  no  such 
course  of  folly  and  futility  toward  another  nation. 
We  believe  that  the  German  people — when  once  the 
dreams  of  world-empire,  cherished  by  pan-Germanism 
are  brought  to  nought — will  insist  upon  the  control 
of  its  government;  and  in  this  lies  the  hope  of  secure 
freedom  and  national  independence  in  Europe.  For  a 
German  democracy  will  not  plot  and  plan  wars,  as 
Prussian  militarism  plotted  wars,  to  take  place  at  a 
chosen  date  in  the  future." 

In  the  midst  of  war,  Sir  Edward  Grey's  great  vision 
remains  a  vision  of  peace — not  a  wobbly  peace,  not  a 
peace  vulnerable  to  political  and  militarist  intrigue 
and  ambition,  but  a  peace  secured  by  the  unified  and 
armed  purpose  of  civilization.  Long  before  this  war, 
Sir  Edward  hoped  for  a  league  of  nations  that  would  be 
united,  quick  and  instant,  to  prevent,  and,  if  need  be, 
to  punish  violation  of  international  treaties,  of  public 


50  A  FREE  EUROPE 

right,  of  national  independence,  and  would  say  to 
nations  that  come  forward  with  grievances  and  claims, 
"Put  them  before  an  impartial  tribunal.  Subject  your 
claims  to  the  test  of  law  or  the  judgment  of  impartial 
men.  If  you  can  win  at  this  bar,  you  will  get  what  you 
want;  if  you  cannot,  you  shall  not  have  what  you  want; 
and,  if  you  attempt  to  start  a  war,  we  all  shall  adjudge 
you  the  common  enemy  of  humanity,  and  treat  you 
accordingly.  As  footpads,  safe-breakers,  burglars,  and 
incendiaries  are  suppressed  in  nations,  so  those  who 
would  commit  these  crimes,  and  incalculably  more  than 
these  crimes,  will  be  suppressed  among  nations." 

LESSON   OF   THE   WAR 

"Unless  mankind  learns  from  this  war  to  avoid 
war,"  said  Sir  Edward,  in  conclusion,  "the  struggle 
will  have  been  in  vain.  Furthermore,  it  seems  to  me 
that  over  humanity  will  loom  the  menace  of  destruction. 
The  Germans  have  thrown  the  door  wide  open  to 
every  form  of  attack  upon  human  life.  The  use  of 
poisonous  fumes,  or  something  akin  to  them  in  war, 
was  recommended  to  our  naval  or  military  authorities 
many  years  ago,  and  was  rejected  by  them  as  too 
horrible  for  civilized  peoples  to  use.  The  Germans 
have  come  with  floating  mines  in  the  open  seas,  threat- 
ening belligerents  and  neutrals  equally;  they  have 
come  with  the  indiscriminating,  murderous  Zeppelin, 
which  does  military  damage  only  by  accident;  they 
have  come  with  the  submarine,  which  destroys  neutral 
and  belligerent  ships  and  crews  in  scorn  alike  of  law 
and  of  mercy;  they  have  come  upon  blameless  nations 
with  invasion  and  incendiarism  and  confiscation;  they 


A  FREE  EUROPE  51 

have  come  with  poisonous  gases  and  liquid  fire.  All 
their  scientific  genius  has  been  dedicated  to  wiping 
out  human  life.  They  have  forced  these  things  into 
general  use  in  war.  If  the  world  cannot  organize 
against  war,  if  war  must  go  on,  then  nations  can  protect 
themselves  henceforth  only  by  using  whatever  destruc- 
tive agencies  they  can  invent,  till  the  resources  and 
inventions  of  science  end  by  destroying  the  humanity 
that  they  were  meant  to  serve.  The  Germans  assert 
that  their  culture  is  so  extraordinarily  superior  that 
it  gives  them  a  normal  right  to  impose  it  upon  the 
rest  of  the  world  by  force.  Will  the  outstanding  con- 
tribution of  Kultur  disclosed  in  this  war  be  such 
efficiency  in  slaughter  as  to  lead  to  wholesale  exter- 
mination? 

"The  Prussian  authorities  have  apparently  but  one 
idea  of  peace,  an  iron  peace  imposed  on  other  nations 
by  German  supremacy.  They  do  not  understand  that 
free  men  and  free  nations  will  rather  die  than  submit 
to  that  ambition,  and  that  there  can  be  no  end  to  war 
till  it  is  defeated  and  renounced." 


IV 

THE  VIOLATION  OF  THE 
NEUTRALITY  OF  BELGIUM 

With  a  Preface  by 
M.  PAUL  HYMANS, 

Minister  of  State  (Belgium). 
At  present  Belgian  Minister  in  London. 


IV 

THE  VIOLATION  OF  THE  NEUTRALITY 
OF  BELGIUM 

BELGIUM,  a  neutral  country,  living  in  calm  and 
complete  friendship  with  the  neighbouring 
Powers  which  had  guaranteed  her  neutrality,  an 
industrious  nation,  accustomed  to  liberty  and  devoted  to 
the  arts  of  peace,  has  been  dragged  against  her  will  into  the 
most  frightful  war  which  has  ever  devastated  the  world. 

What  circumstances  compelled  this  little  people  of 
seven  million  souls  to  take  up  arms  and  to  dare  the 
German  colossus?  Why  has  she  been  exposed  to  all  the 
horrors  of  invasion?  Why  has  she  poured  out  her  blood 
and  material  resources  without  counting  the  cost? 

The  documents  here  collected  furnish  the  answer  to 
these  questions.  They  set  out  the  unswerving  loyalty 
of  Belgium  and  her  inflexible  resolve  to  fulfil  all  her 
duties  to  others  as  well  as  to  herself.  They  set  out  also 
the  cynical  promises  made  by  Germany  and  the  brutal 
threat  which  accompanied  them.  Belgium  needs  no 
eloquence  to  succeed  in  her  suit  before  the  civilized  world. 
It  is  enough  to  set  out  the  facts.  They  furnish  irre- 
sistible proof  of  the  justice  of  her  cause. 


The  international  status  of  Belgium  was  determined 
by  the  Treaties  of  1831  and  1839.     When  the  Belgian 

55 


56       THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY 

provinces  separated  from  Holland  and  formed  them- 
selves into  an  independent  and  sovereign  State,  the 
representatives  of  the  great  Powers  assembled  at  the 
Congress  of  London  determined  the  character  of  the 
new  State  by  two  successive  agreements.  The  "Treaty 
of  the  Eighteen  Articles"  of  the  26th  June,  1831,  pro- 
vides that  Belgium  shall  form  a  perpetually  neutral 
State,  and  that  the  Powers  should  guarantee  that 
perpetual  neutrality.  The  "Treaty  of  the  Twenty- 
four  Articles"  of  the  15th  November,  1831,  contained 
the  following  passage: — 

Article  7.  Belgium,  within  the  limits  fixed  by  Articles  1,  2, 
and  4  shall  form  an  independent  and  perpetually  neutral  State. 
She  shall  be  bound  to  observe  the  same  neutrality  toward  all 
other  States. 

Lastly,  on  the  19th  April,  1839,  a  final  Treaty  con- 
cluded between  Belgium  and  Holland  reproduced  this 
provision,  and  the  great  Powers,  Austria,  France, 
and  Great  Britain,  Prussia,  and  Russia,  acceding  to 
the  Treaty,  declared  that  all  its  articles  "are  placed 
under  their  guarantee." 

Belgium,  therefore,  is,  and  has  been  since  she  came 
into  existence,  a  neutral  State.  Her  neutrality  is 
permanent  and  the  creature  of  treaty,  determined  upon 
by  Europe,  decreed  by  Europe,  and  accepted  by  Bel- 
gium. 

In  1870  the  Franco-Prussian  War  broke  out  on  our 
frontier  and  exposed  us  to  serious  perils.  England 
preserved  us  from  them.  She  approached  simultane- 
ously France  and  the  North  German  Confederation,  and 
required  them  to  make  a  formal  declaration  that  they 


THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY       57 

would  respect  Belgian  neutrality,  threatening,  if  that 
neutrality  were  violated,  to  intervene  in  the  war.  The 
belligerent  States  bound  themselves  by  fresh  treaties, 
which  gave  an  added  solemnity  to  the  Treaty  of  1839. 

For  more  than  eighty  years  Belgium,  resting  upon 
these  solemn  treaties,  has  lived  peaceably,  applying 
herself  to  the  development  of  the  freest  institutions 
in  the  world,  making  herself  illustrious  in  the  arts,  in 
commerce,  and  in  industry;  making  her  moral  person- 
ality known  throughout  the  world  so  that  it  has  be- 
come one  of  the  factors  in  universal  civilization. 

For  some  years,  however,  well-informed  people  as 
well  as  the  political  and  military  world  have  been  ren- 
dered uneasy  by  the  complications  of  European  foreign 
policy.  The  Morocco  crisis,  the  competition  between 
nations  for  colonial  possessions,  the  tension  in  diplo- 
matic relations,  the  incidents  of  the  Balkan  crisis, 
gave  rise  to  fears  lest  some  incident  should  suddenly 
assume  dangerous  proportions,  and  result  in  a  collision 
which  might  degenerate  into  a  general  war.  In  such 
case  Belgium  would  find  herself  in  a  position  more 
precarious  than  that  of  1870.  The  war  of  1870  re- 
mained localized  throughout.  Great  Britain  preserved 
neutrality,  and  as  a  judge  between  nations  protected 
Belgium.  Since  then  the  whole  face  of  Europe  has 
been  changed.  The  Powers  had  formed  themselves 
into  opposing  groups.  It  was  doubtful  whether  Eng- 
land could  exercise  her  position  as  guarantor  as  effec- 
tively as  in  1870. 

Anxieties  arising  from  international  events  caused 
the  Belgian  Government  and  Parliament  to  determine 
to  strengthen  the  national  defences.  As  early  as  1909 


58       THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY 

a  law  abolishing  remplacement  had  established  personal 
military  service,  laying  upon  every  family  the  obliga- 
tion to  give  a  son  to  the  Army.  In  1912  M.  de  Broque- 
ville  introduced,  in  the  name  of  the  Cabinet,  a  Bill 
making  the  obligation  general,  whose  effect  would  be  to 
double  the  effective  strength  of  the  Army.  The  new 
system  was  put  in  force  in  1913,  but  could  not  produce 
its  complete  results  until  1917. 

When  the  ultimatum  addressed  by  Austria  to  Serbia 
was  published,  the  gravity  of  the  situation  became 
apparent  to  every  one.  It  was  decided  to  take  pre- 
cautionary measures.  On  the  28th  July  officers  on 
leave  and  soldiers  on  furlough  were  ordered  to  rejoin 
their  corps;  on  the  29th  three  classes  of  militia  were 
called  up,  placing  the  Army  on  the  footing  of  paix 
renforcee.  The  fortresses  of  Antwerp  and  theMeuse 
were  put  in  a  state  of  defence.  These  preparations 
were  not  the  consequence  of  any  ideas  hostile  to  any 
of  our  neighbours,  and  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs, 
M.  Davignon,  made  an  announcement  to  this  effect 
to  our  principal  Legations.  They  were  dictated  by 
elementary  prudence.  If  France  and  Germany  were 
to  come  to  blows,  our  position  would  become  very 
critical.  It  is  true  that  no  one  anticipated  an  attack 
from  either  Power  on  neutral  Belgium.  But  there 
was  the  risk  that  the  operations  of  armies  stretched 
out  along  our  frontiers  should  overflow  into  our  terri- 
tory; and  for  a  long  time  military  writers  had  discussed 
openly  the  contingency  that  German  or  French  troops, 
seeking  to  reach  enemy  territory  by  the  shortest  road, 
should  make  use  of  the  valley  of  the  Meuse  or  the  roads 
of  Luxemburg. 


THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY       59 

The  uneasiness  of  the  Government  increased  when 
they  learned,  on  the  evening  of  the  31st  July,  that  com- 
munication by  rail  between  Germany  and  Belgium  had 
just  been  interrupted.  During  the  night  orders  for 
mobilization  were  issued.  Holland  had  already  taken 
a  similar  measure.  The  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs 
immediately  sent  to  the  European  Chancelleries  a 
note  in  which  he  described  the  position  of  Belgium. 
He  drew  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  country  had 
always  fulfilled  scrupulously  the  duties  of  neutrality, 
and  was  inflexibly  determined  to  maintain  it.  The 
measures  which  the  Government  had  just  taken,  he 
said,  had  no  other  aim  but  that  of  putting  Belgium  in  a 
position  to  fulfil  her  international  obligations.  "It 
is  obvious  that  they  never  have  been  nor  can  have 
been  undertaken  with  any  intention  of  taking  part 
in  an  armed  struggle  between  the  Powers  or  from 
any  feeling  of  distrust  of  any  of  those  Powers." 
Their  only  object  was  to  ensure  the  observance  of 
neutrality. 

ii 

In  spite  of  the  gravity  of  the  situation  there  was  a 
general  hope  in  Belgium  that  Germany  and  France 
would  respect  the  neutrality  of  Belgium. 

Already  on  the  31st  July,  M.  Klobukowski,  the 
French  Minister,  in  conversation  with  M.  Davignon, 
had  reassured  him  as  to  the  intentions  of  the  Republic. 
And  on  the  next  day,  the  1st  August,  he  stated  that 
he  was  authorized  to  inform  him  that  the  French 
Government  would  respect  the  neutrality  of  Belgium. 
It  was  only  in  the  contingency  that  this  neutrality 


60       THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY 

should  not  be  respected  by  some  other  Power  that 
France  could  be  led  to  alter  her  attitude. 

Similar  action  was  expected  from  Germany.  Herr 
von  Below  the  German  representative  at  Brussels, 
when  informed  by  M.  Davignon  of  the  statement  made 
by  M.  Klobukowski  replied  that  he  had  not  been  in- 
structed to  make  any  similar  statement  to  the  Belgian 
Government,  but  that  "his  personal  opinion  as  to 
the  feelings  of  security  which  Belgium  had  the  right  to 
entertain  toward  her  eastern  neighbours"  was  well 
known.  On  the  previous  evening,  the  Secretary  Gen- 
eral of  the  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Baron  van 
der  Elst,  had  a  long  conversation  with  Herr  von  Below; 
he  reminded  the  latter  of  an  interesting  exchange  of 
opinion  which  he  had  had  with  his  predecessor  Herr 
von  Flotow:  this  conversation  took  place  in  1911  as  a 
result  of  a  newspaper  controversy;  certain  newspapers 
had  stated  that  in  the  event  of  a  Franco-German  war 
Germany  would  violate  the  neutrality  of  Belgium.  It 
had  been  suggested  that  a  declaration  in  the  German 
Parliament  would  serve  to  calm  public  opinion,  and 
dispel  regrettable  mistrust.  Herr  von  Bethmann- 
Hollweg,  when  informed  of  this  suggestion,  had  replied 
that  Germany  would  not  violate  Belgian  neutrality, 
but  that  a  public  statement  to  this  effect  would  weaken 
the  military  situation  of  Germany  in  regard  to  France, 
who,  secure  on  the  northern  side,  would  concentrate 
all  her  energies  on  the  east. 

At  a  later  date,  in  1913,  Herr  von  Jagow,  Secretary 
of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  in  a  reply  to  a  question  of  a 
Socialist  Deputy  during  a  sitting  of  the  Budget  Com- 
mission of  the  Reichstag,  had  stated  that  Belgian  neu- 


THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY       61 

trality  was  determined  by  international  treaties  and 
that  Germany  was  determined  to  respect  those  treaties. 
Baron  van  der  Elst  reminded  Herr  von  Below  of  these 
facts.  The  latter  not  only  admitted  their  accuracy 
but  added  that  he  was  certain  "that  the  sentiments 
expressed  at  that  time  had  not  changed." 

It  was  open  to  us  to  believe  in  the  sincerity  of  state- 
ments made  on  different  occasions  by  German  diplo- 
mats and  statesmen,  although  the  Imperial  Govern- 
ment had  refrained  from  making  the  official  declara- 
tion on  which  we  counted. 

Indeed  in  late  years  several  incidents  appear  to  have 
drawn  closer  the  ties  which  bound  the  two  countries 
and  their  ruling  houses  together.  The  brilliant  part 
taken  by  Germany  in  the  Brussels  Exhibition  of  1910 
and  the  warm  welcome  given  to  the  German  repre- 
sentatives, the  visit  of  the  Emperor,  the  Empress, 
and  Princess  Victoria  Louise  to  the  royal  family,  the 
marks  of  friendship  lavished  on  the  King  by  the  Em- 
peror William,  all  drove  from  our  minds  any  thought 
that  Germany  was  entertaining  hostile  plans  and  medi- 
tating invasion  or  conquest. 

The  Emperor  had  been  received  at  Brussels  with  a 
sympathy  which,  as  he  declared,  greatly  moved  him. 
He  had  several  times  expressed  to  all  those  whom  he 
met  how  greatly  pleased  and  flattered  he  was.  He 
had  employed  freely  his  seductive  talents,  talking 
with  familiarity,  freedom,  and  charm.  He  showed 
himself  particularly  gracious  to  the  Burgomaster  of 
Brussels,  M.  Max,  who  had  received  him  formally  at 
the  Town  Hall.  Three  years  afterward,  on  the  oc- 
casion of  the  joyeuse  entree  of  the  King  and  Queen  into 


62       THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY 

Liege,  the  Emperor  had  directed  General  von  Emmich 
to  go  to  that  town  and  greet  our  Sovereigns  in  his 
name.  The  Imperial  Envoy,  during  a  banquet  at 
which  he  sat  next  to  our  Minister  of  Justice,  M.  Carton 
de  Wiart,  had  expressed  to  the  latter  his  admiration 
for  the  institutions  of  the  Belgian  people,  their  virtues, 
and  the  merits  of  their  King.  That  was  in  August, 
1913.  In  August,  1914,  the  same  General  von  Emmich 
was  in  command  of  the  attack  on  the  forts  of  Liege. 
Lastly,  every  one  knows  how  Germans  were  treated  in 
Belgium,  and  what  an  important  position  they  had 
taken  in  the  business  world.  At  Antwerp  the  increase 
of  German  influence  due  to  the  action  of  powerful  ship- 
ping houses  and  rich  merchant  princes  had  been 
long  noticeable.  At  Brussels  there  was  scarcely  an 
important  bank  whose  Board  of  Directors  did  not  in- 
clude representatives  of  German  finance  and  industry. 

Many  members  of  the  German  colony  were  warmly 
received  in  society  at  Brussels  and  Antwerp;  freely 
enjoyed  cordial  Belgian  hospitality,  and  did  not  shrink 
from  seeking  honours  as  well  as  profit  amongst  us. 

The  Government,  on  the  other  hand,  faithful  to  the 
policy  of  strict  neutrality  which  all  Belgian  ministries 
have  observed  ever  since  the  State  came  into  existence, 
applied  its  energies,  so  far  as  it  could,  to  maintaining  a 
balance  between  the  influences  of  the  two  neighbouring 
countries  in  public  opinion.  Sympathy  for  France  is 
natural  in  a  country  which  is  so  near  to  her  in  language 
and  civilization  and  in  the  great  likeness  of  many  of 
her  civil  and  political  institutions.  Hence  came  at 
times,  in  certain  controversies,  assertions  of  preference 
for  France  which  entailed  some  danger  of  wounding 


THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY       63 

German  pride  and  gave  rise  to  mistrust  and  misunder- 
standing. The  Government  on  several  occasions  inter- 
vened discreetly  to  redress  the  balance  in  public  opin- 
ion, and  on  my  own  personal  knowledge  I  can  offer 
an  important  piece  of  evidence  on  this  point. 

About  a  year  ago  the  Government  asked  me,  though 
I  belonged  to  the  opposition,  to  approach  some  of  my 
friends  in  the  Liberal  press  with  a  view  to  inducing  them 
to  discuss  with  reserve  and  prudence  certain  questions 
as  to  German  policy  which  were  the  subject  of  agitation 
at  the  moment.  I  willingly  undertook  this  mission, 
for  I  have  always  been  of  opinion  that  it  was  necessary 
in  our  neutral  country  only  to  examine  international 
affairs  from  the  point  of  view  of  Belgium,  considering 
only  our  position  in  Europe  and  the  necessity  of 
preserving  friendship  with  our  neighbours  on  both 
sides. 

A  still  more  characteristic  incident  took  place  on  the 
2nd  August,  the  very  day  of  the  ultimatum.  During 
the  morning  a  Brussels  paper,  the  Petit  Bleu,  pub- 
lished an  article  headed  "  Long  Live  France;  Down  with 
German  Barbarism."  The  Minister  of  Justice,  M. 
Carton  de  Wiart,  ordered  all  the  copies  of  the  paper 
to  be  seized  and  directed  proceedings  to  be  taken 
against  the  publisher.  It  is  clear  that,  up  to  the 
eleventh  hour,  the  Government's  anxiety  was  to  an- 
ticipate and  suppress  even  any  moral  breach  of 
neutrality. 

Belgium  thus  was  guiltless,  her  attitude  was  correct 
in  all  respects;  nothing  in  her  policy  or  her  domestic 
conduct  offered  any  point  for  criticism.  Germany 
had  no  cause  for  complaint  against  her. 


64       THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY 

Since  then  an  attempt  has  been  made  by  the  publica- 
tion and  garbling  of  certain  documents  to  represent 
falsely  that  the  Belgian  Government,  long  before  the 
war,  had  taken  sides  with  England  and  plotted  against 
Germany. 

By  a  search  in  the  records  of  the  War  Department 
at  Brussels,  the  Germans  have  brought  to  light  a 
Minute  by  the  Chief  of  the  Belgian  General  Staff, 
written  in  1906,  and  a  note  by  Baron  Greindl,  our 
Minister  at  Berlin,  dated  1911,  on  the  subject  of  the 
measures  of  defence  to  be  taken  by  Belgium  in  case  of  a 
Franco-German  war,  and  the  violation  by  Germany  of 
Belgian  neutrality.  An  attempt  has  been  made  to 
mislead  public  feeling  by  surrounding  this  document 
with  sophistical  comment  intended  to  throw  suspicion 
on  Belgian  policy,  and  to  weave  a  legend  of  duplicity 
around  the  Government. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  these  papers  have  no  real  import- 
ance. In  order  to  judge  fairly  our  military  policy, 
it  would  be  necessary  to  have  a  knowledge  of  all  the 
documents  in  which  it  is  revealed  and  set  out.  Let 
them  be  published;  they  would  provide  a  striking  justi- 
fication of  our  action.  In  fact,  the  Memorandum  now 
in  question  was  drawn  up  by  the  Chief  of  the  General 
Staff,  General  Ducarne,  as  a  result  of  conversations 
between  him  and  Colonel  Barnardiston,  the  Military 
Attache  of  the  British  Legation,  on  the  subject  of  the 
contingency  of  the  violation  of  Belgian  neutrality  by 
Germany  in  a  war  between  that  Power  and  France. 
Similarly  Baron  Greindl's  note  has  reference  to  a  plan 
for  the  defence  of  Luxemburg  drawn  up  on  the  same 
hypothesis,  which  is  the  fruit  of  the  personal  action  of 


THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY       65 

the  head  of  the  first  division  of  the  Department  of 
War. 

The  conversations  between  Colonel  Barnardiston 
and  General  Ducarne  dealt  only  with  technical  military 
problems  and  had  not  the  smallest  influence  on  policy. 
This  is  all  the  more  apparent  when  it  is  realized  that 
at  the  moment  when  these  conversations  took  place 
the  relations  between  England  and  Belgium  were  some- 
what strained.  In  1906  the  difficulties  which  arose 
from  the  Congo  question  were  reaching  their  culminat- 
ing point. 

As  to  Baron  Greindl's  note,  it  dates  from  the  period 
when  the  Agadir  incident  had  troubled  the  peace  of 
Europe  and  when  the  violation  of  Belgian  territory 
by  the  Imperial  armies  in  case  of  a  Franco-German 
war  had  been  pointed  out  as  a  useful  and  probable 
operation  by  the  chief  writers  in  Germany,  for  example 
Bernhardi  and  Von  der  Goltz. 

In  addition  the  documents  published  have  only  an 
academic  character,  were  never  considered  by  the 
Belgian  Government,  and  did  not  produce  any  result. 
In  reality  they  are  wholly  devoid  of  any  political 
meaning. 

And  never  at  any  time,  neither  then,  nor  before,  nor 
afterward,  has  the  Belgian  Government  ever  been 
invited  to  enter  or  ever  thought  of  entering  into  more 
intimate  relations  with  the  Triple  Entente  than  with 
the  Triple  Alliance.  Its  sole  care  throughout  has  been 
to  maintain  completely,  absolutely,  and  scrupulously, 
neutrality  in  word  and  deed. 

The  German  press,  when  it  waves  these  innocuous 
papers  about,  is  merely  obeying  the  word  of  command. 


66       THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY 

The  object  is  by  a  clever  counter  attack  to  relieve 
Germany  of  the  responsibility  which  weighs  heavily 
upon  her  for  an  open  disregard  of  a  sacred  engage- 
ment. 

in 

Up  to  the  last  moment  the  German  representatives 
used  all  their  efforts  to  reassure  the  Belgian  Govern- 
ment and  to  mislead  public  opinion. 

On  the  1st  August  the  Military  Attache  of  the  Ger- 
man Legation  went  to  the  Minister  of  War  to  offer 
his  congratulations  on  the  order  and  rapidity  of  the 
mobilization  operations  and  took  care  to  advertise  this 
move  by  a  communication  to  the  press. 

Next  day,  2d  August,  the  fatal  day,  a  sensational 
statement  by  the  German  Minister  gave  great  satis- 
faction in  Brussels.  Interviewed  by  a  reporter  to 
one  of  our  big  daily  papers  he  said  to  him  "Perhaps 
the  house  of  your  neighbour  may  catch  fire  but  your 
house  will  remain  untouched."  This  statement  printed 
in  large  type  was  published  in  a  special  edition  and 
had  a  wide  circulation.  Public  confidence,  which  had 
been  shaken  by  the  news  of  the  violation  of  the  neu- 
trality of  the  Grand  Duchy  of  Luxemburg,  was  re- 
assured. The  horizon  seemed  to  grow  light  again. 

On  the  same  day,  three  hours  afterward,  at  seven  in 
the  evening,  Herr  von  Below  went  to  the  Foreign  Office 
and  communicated  the  German  ultimatum  to  the  Bel- 
gian Government.  Twelve  hours  of  the  night  were 
allowed  for  the  reply.  None  of  us  can  ever  forget  the 
tragic  night  which  followed. 

The  Members  of  the  Cabinet  and  Ministers  of  State 


THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY       67 

met  together  under  the  chairmanship  of  the  King 
and  deliberated. 

There  were  two  possible  courses  of  action  open  to 
us:  The  first  was  to  allow  a  free  passage  to  the  German 
armies  in  their  march  on  France  and  to  obtain  a  large 
indemnity  for  the  damage  suffered;  that  would  have 
meant  the  friendship  of  Germany  to-day  and  her 
sovereignty  to-morrow.  It  would  also  have  meant  the 
tearing  up  of  the  title  deeds  of  the  Belgian  nation  and 
the  violation  by  her  own  hand  of  the  neutrality  which 
had  been  decreed  by  Europe  and  accepted  by  Belgium 
and  treason  to  the  duties  imposed  upon  us  by  that 
neutrality.  The  alternative  was  to  run  the  danger  of 
war  and  invasion,  to  oppose  the  most  formidable  mili- 
tary power  in  the  world  and  to  keep  our  honour  un- 
stained, to  maintain  our  title,  to  respect  our  treaties. 

There  was  no  discussion.  Our  decision  was  plain 
before  us.  It  was  taken  at  once.  We  decided  to  pro- 
test and  to  resist. 

The  reply  was  drafted  in  the  Foreign  Office.  It  was 
taken  to  the  Palace  and  approved  unanimously  by 
the  King  and  the  Council.  At  seven  in  the  morning 
on  the  3d  August  it  was  handed  to  the  German  Min- 
ister. 

What  reasons  had  Germany  given  for  demanding 
from  Belgium  a  free  passage,  the  abandonment  of  her 
rights,  and  the  surrender  of  her  territory. 

The  ultimatum  said  "Reliable  information  has  been 
received  by  the  German  Government  to  the  effect  that 
French  forces  intend  to  march  on  the  line  of  the  Meuse 
by  Givet  and  Namur." 

This  was  only  a  pretext.     It  is  disproved  by  facts: 


68       THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY 

For  several  weeks  the  Belgian  army,  unsuppprted, 
defended  Belgian  soil. 

The  childishness  of  the  argument  was  so  obvious  to 
those  who  used  it  that  from  the  very  beginning  they 
invented  others  which  were  not  less  absurd. 

During  the  night  of  the  2d-3d  August  while  the  text 
of  the  reply  to  the  ultimatum  was  being  copied  in  the 
Foreign  Office  the  German  Minister  was  announced. 
He  was  received  by  Baron  van  der  Elst  and  told  the 
latter  with  every  sign  of  lively  emotion  that  he  was 
directed  by  his  Government  to  inform  him  that  al- 
though war  had  not  been  declared  a  patrol  of  French 
cavalry  had  crossed  the  frontier  and  that  French  dirigi- 
bles had  thrown  bombs.  Baron  van  der  Elst  asked 
where  this  had  happened.  "In  Germany,"  replied 
Herr  von  Below.  Baron  van  der  Elst  observed  that 
in  that  case  he  did  not  understand  the  object  of  Herr 
von  Below's  visit,  but  the  latter  then  explained  that  the 
acts  which  he  mentioned  constituted  a  violation  of 
international  law,  and  that  it  must  therefore  be  sup- 
posed that  France  would  continue  to  violate  that 
law. 

The  German  Generals,  during  the  first  days  of 
hostilities,  invented  in  their  turn  fresh  grounds  of 
complaint. 

On  the  4th  August  the  first  German  soldiers  arrived 
at  Warsage.  They  distributed  to  the  inhabitants  a 
proclamation  signed  by  General  von  Emmich,  which 
states  that  "To  my  great  regret  the  German  troops 
find  themselves  compelled  to  cross  the  Belgian  fron- 
tier. They  are  acting  under  the  compulsion  of  inevi- 
table necessity,  Belgian  neutrality  having  already  been 


THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY       69 

violated  by  French  officers  who  have  crossed  Belgian 
territory  in  disguise  in  a  motor  car  and  entered  Ger- 
many." 

Thus  it  appears  that  Germany  declared  war  upon  us 
because  French  officers  in  disguise  had  secretly  passed 
along  Belgian  roads  in  a  motor  car. 

General  von  Billow  has  recourse  to  another  story. 

On  the  9th  August  he  issued  a  proclamation  "To  the 
Belgian  People"  in  which  the  following  passage  occurs: 

"We  are  fighting  the  Belgian  army  solely  to  force  a  passage 
toward  France  which  your  Government  has  wrongfully  refused 
to  us  although  they  have  allowed  the  French  to  make  a  military 
reconnaissance,  a  fact  which  your  papers  have  concealed  from 
you." 

Lastly,  American  defenders  of  German  policy — 
very  few  indeed  in  number,  and  little  heeded — have 
in  their  pro-German  zeal  invented  more  extraordinary 
justifications  for  the  invasion  of  Belgium.  One  of 
them,  a  professor  at  a  University,  has  the  audacity 
to  state  that  Belgium  had  tacitly  authorized  France 
to  violate  her  neutrality  during  July  by  permitting 
French  officers  to  inspect  our  fortifications,  and  that 
France,  with  the  consent  of  our  Government,  was 
prepared  to  use  Belgian  territory  as  a  base  of  opera- 
tions. Another,  also  a  professor,  does  not  scruple 
to  affirm  without  the  least  attempt  at  proof  that  the 
Belgian  army  has  been  trained  by  French  officers, 
and  that  Belgium  for  twenty-five  years  has  been  a 
vassal  State  of  France.  If  that  is  true,  how  is  it  that 
Germany  allowed  it?  What  explanation  is  there  for 
the  fact  that  until  the  striking  of  the  dark  hour  when 


70       THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY 

she  brought  her  guns  into  action  against  us  she  never 
ceased  to  lavish  upon  us  marks  of  sympathy? 

These  absurd  fairy  tales  are  spread  about  with  skill, 
and  there  is  some  danger  that  they  may  take  people  in. 

It  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  them  to  state  the  words  of 
the  ultimatum  itself,  which  does  not  impute  any  fault 
to  Belgium,  which  makes  no  complaint  against  her, 
and  which  confines  itself  to  attributing  to  the  French 
troops  the  "intention"  of  passing  through  Belgian 
territory. 

In  addition,  the  categorical  public  statement  to  the 
Reichstag  by  the  Imperial  Chancellor  destroys  every 
pretext,  every  excuse,  every  attempt  at  justification. 
On  the  4th  August,  Herr  von  Bethmann-Hollweg  ex- 
pressed himself  as  follows: — 

"We  are  in  a  state  of  necessity,  and  necessity  knows  no  law. 
Our  troops  have  occupied  Luxemburg  and  perhaps  have  already 
entered  the  Belgian  territory.  That  is  a  breach  of  international 
law  .  .  .  the  wrong  we  thereby  commit  we  will  try  to  make 
good  as  soon  as  our  military  aims  have  been  attained." 

Thus,  to  accomplish  her  military  plans,  Germany 
intentionally  violated  international  law,  deliberately 
committed  an  injustice,  placed  the  interests  of  her 
defence  above  right  and  above  treaties. 

Besides,  what  do  treaties  matter?  The  Chancellor 
put  his  point  of  view  without  any  reticence  to  the 
British  Ambassador  at  Berlin.  "Just  for  a  word," 
he  said,  "neutrality,  a  word  which  in  war  time  so  often 
has  been  disregarded,  just  for  a  scrap  of  paper  Great 
Britain  was  going  to  make  war." 

These  confessions  revealed  the  methods  of  thought 


THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY       71 

which  have  directed  German  policy:  any  idea  of  right 
has  been  set  aside;  brutal  utilitarianism  dominates 
them.  Bismarck  condensed  it  in  this  cynical  formula 
—"Where  the  Power  of  Prussia  is  in  question,  I  know 
no  law." 

Belgium  is  innocent.     Her  cause  is  pure. 

Neutral  in  perpetuity  by  the  decision  of  Europe, 
her  duty  was  to  defend  her  neutrality  and  her  inde- 
pendence against  any  attack  from  wheresoever  it  might 
come.  A  duty  imposed  upon  her  by  her  own  dignity 
and  by  her  loyalty  toward  the  Powers  who  had  laid 
neutrality  upon  her  and  assumed  the  obligation  to 
guarantee  it. 

To  serve  one  of  those  Powers  was  to  betray  the  rest. 

It  is  a  principle  of  international  law  that  neutral 
territory  is  inviolable.  It  should  have  been  doubly 
impossible  for  Belgian  territory  to  be  violated  by  Ger- 
many, inasmuch  as  she  was  bound  by  treaty  not  only 
to  respect  it  herself,  but  even  to  protect  it  if  others 
threatened  any  attempt  against  it. 

Germany  has  disregarded  her  engagements;  Belgium 
has  remained  faithful  to  her  word. 

In  the  drama  which  is  being  played  upon  the  stage 
of  the  world  Belgium  represents  "right."  If  a  nation 
is  permitted  in  the  twentieth  century  to  tear  up  treaties, 
to  trample  down  the  weak,  to  crush  a  little  people  to 
satisfy  the  ambition  of  the  great,  we  must  despair  of 
the  modern  world.  The  whole  building  of  civilization 
would  crumble.  International  law,  respect  for  na- 
tionalities, the  liberty  of  peoples,  the  observance  of 
the  most  solemn  engagements,  everything  would  be 
sacrificed  to  caprice,  the  arbitrament  of  force. 


72       THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY 

Belgium,  proud  and  confident,  lays  her  case  before 
the  judgment  of  the  world. 

Meeting  of  the  Belgian  Chambers.     Sitting  of  the  4th 

August,  1914 


KING'S  SPEECH 


GENTLEMEN, 

Never  since  1830  has  a  more  grave  moment  come  to 
Belgium:  the  integrity  of  our  territory  is  threatened. 

The  strength  of  our  just  cause,  the  sympathy  which 
Belgium,  proud  of  her  free  institutions  and  of  her 
conquests  in  the  moral  world,  has  never  ceased  to 
enjoy  with  other  nations,  the  fact  that  our  independent 
existence  is  necessary  for  the  balance  of  power  in 
Europe,  these  considerations  give  rise  to  hope  that  the 
events  which  we  fear  will  not  take  place. 

But  if  our  hopes  fail,  if  we  must  resist  the  invasion 
of  our  soil  and  must  defend  our  threatened  homes, 
this  duty,  hard  though  it  be,  will  find  us  armed  and 
prepared  for  the  greatest  sacrifices  [cheers  and  cries 
of  "Long  Live  the  King  and  Long  Live  Belgium"]. 

From  this  moment,  with  a  view  to  meet  every  con- 
tingency, the  valiant  youth  of  our  nation  stand  ready 
firmly  resolved  with  the  traditional  tenacity  and 
calmness  of  the  Belgians  to  defend  their  fatherland  at 
a  moment  of  danger  [cheers]. 

To  them  I  send  a  brotherly  greeting  in  the  name  of 
the  nation  [cheers  and  cries  of  "Long  Live  the  Army] 
throughout  Flanders  and  the  country  of  the  Wallonie 
in  town  and  country  one  sentiment  alone  fills  every 
heart — patriotism;  one  vision  alone  fills  every  mind — 


THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY       73 

our  threatened  independence.  One  duty  alone  is 
laid  upon  our  wills,  stubborn  resistance  [applause, 
cheers]. 

At  this  grave  moment  two  virtues  are  indispensable 
—courage,  calm  [renewed  cheers]  but  firm,  and  close 
union  among  all  Belgians. 

Striking  evidence  of  both  these  virtues  is  already 
before  the  eyes  of  a  nation  full  of  enthusiasm. 

The  faultless  mobilization  of  our  army,  the  multitude 
of  volunteers,  the  devotion  of  the  civil  population,  the 
self-sacrifice  of  families  have  shown  incontestably  that 
the  whole  Belgian  people  is  carried  away  by  stimulating 
courage  [applause].  The  moment  has  come  to  act. 

I  have  called  you  together,  gentlemen,  to  give  to 
the  Legislative  Chambers  an  opportunity  to  associate 
themselves  with  the  impulses  of  the  people  in  the  same 
sentiment  of  sacrifice.  Gentlemen,  you  will  know  how 
to  deal  urgently  with  all  the  measures  which  the  situ- 
ation requires  for  the  war  and  for  public  order  [general 
assent]. 

When  I  see  this  enthusiastic  gathering  in  which  there 
is  only  one  party,  that  of  the  fatherland  [enthusiastic 
cheers  and  cries  of  "Long  Live  Belgium"],  in  which  at 
this  moment  all  hearts  beat  as  one,  my  mind  goes 
back  to  the  Congress  of  1830,  and  I  ask  of  you  gentle- 
men, are  you  determined  unswervingly  to  maintain 
intact  the  whole  patrimony  of  our  ancestors  ["Yes,  yes," 
from  every  side]. 

No  one  in  the  country  will  fail  in  his  duty. 

The  Army,  strong  and  disciplined,  is  fit  to  do  this 
task:  my  Government  and  I  have  full  confidence  in 
its  leaders  and  its  soldiers.  [Hear,  hear.] 


74       THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY 

The  Government,  firmly  attached  to  the  population 
and  supported  by  them,  is  conscious  of  its  responsi- 
bilities, and  will  bear  them  to  the  end  with  the  deliber- 
ate conviction  that  the  efforts  of  all  united  in  the  most 
fervent  and  generous  patriotism  will  safeguard  the  su- 
preme good  of  the  country. 

If  the  foreigner,  disregarding  the  neutrality  whose 
every  duty  we  have  always  observed  scrupulously, 
should  violate  our  territory,  he  will  find  all  Belgians 
grouped  around  their  sovereign  who  will  never  betray 
his  coronation  oath  and  around  a  Government  possessing 
the  absolute  confidence  of  the  entire  nation.  [Cheers 
on  all  the  Benches.] 

I  have  faith  in  our  destiny;  a  country  which  defends 
itself  commands  the  respect  of  all;  such  a  country  shall 
never  perish.  ["Hear,  hear."  "Long  Live  the  King,  Long 
Live  Belgium."] 

God  will  be  with  us  in  this  just  cause  [fresh  applause]. 

Long  live  independent  Belgium  [long  and  unanimous 
cheers  from  the  Assembly  and  from  the  Galleries]. 

PROCLAMATION  BY  THE  KING 

SOLDIERS, 

Without  the  least  provocation  on  our  side  a  neighbour, 
arrogant  in  his  strength,  has  torn  up  the  treaties 
which  bear  his  signature  and  violated  the  land  of  our 
fathers. 

Because  we  have  been  worthy  of  ourselves,  because 
we  have  refused  to  stain  our  honour,  he  attacks  us. 
The  whole  world  stands  marvelling  at  our  loyal  at- 
titude: may  the  respect  and  esteem  of  the  whole  world 
strengthen  you  in  these  supreme  moments. 


THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY       75 

The  nation,  seeing  how  her  independence  was 
threatened,  has  risen  in  enthusiasm  and  her  children 
have  rushed  to  the  frontier.  Valiant  soldiers  in  a  holy 
cause,  I  have  every  confidence  in  your  stubborn  valour, 
and  greet  you  in  the  name  of  Belgium.  Your  fellow 
citizens  are  proud  of  you.  You  will  triumph  for 
you  are  the  army  which  fights  on  the  side  of  justice. 

Caesar  said  of  your  ancestors,  "Of  all  the  people  of 
Gaul,  the  Belgians  are  the  bravest." 

May  glory  be  yours,  army  of  the  Belgian  people. 
Remember  when  you  are  before  the  enemy  that  you  are 
fighting  for  liberty  and  for  your  threatened  homes. 
Remember,  Flemings,  the  battle  of  the  Golden  Spurs, 
and  you,  Wallons  of  Liege,  who  are  at  this  moment 
at  the  place  of  honour,  remember  the  600  Franchi- 
montois. 

Soldiers!  I  am  leaving  Brussels  to  place  myself  at 
your  head. 

Given  at  the  Palace  of  Brussels,  this  5th  day  of 

August,  1914. 

ALBERT. 

OBSERVATIONS  ON  BELGIAN  NEUTRALITY 
REPLY  TO  GERMAN  CHARGES 

In  its  issue  of  26th  November  the  Kblnische  Zeitung 
writes:—  "We  were  justified  in  violating  Belgian  terri- 
tory because  Belgium  did  not  observe  the  duties  of 
neutrality.  This  truth  appears  forcibly  in  two  un- 
assailable documents:  First,  that  published  by  the 
Norddeutsche  Allgemeine  Zeitung,  proving  that  there 
was  in  existence  a  secret  agreement  between  Belgium 
and  England  for  the  cooperation  of  the  military  forces 


76       THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY 

of  these  two  countries  in  a  war  against  Germany. 
Secondly,  adds  the  Kolnische  Zeitung,  it  is  shown  by 
the  report  of  the  confidential  conversation  between 
General  Jungbluth  and  Colonel  Bridges  that  the  Eng- 
lish intended  to  land  troops  in  Belgium  in  any  case, 
even  if  her  help  had  not  been  asked  for  by  Belgium." 

The  argument  of  the  German  press  consists,  there- 
fore, in  justifying  the  violation  of  Belgian  neutrality 
by  Germany  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  Belgium  had 
herself  failed  in  the  duties  of  neutrality  by  negotiating 
a  military  agreement  against  Germany.  This  argu- 
ment of  the  German  press  is  false.  It  is  disproved  by 
the  facts  and  by  the  documents  themselves. 

When,  on  the  14th  October,  the  Norddeutsche  Allge- 
meine  Zeitung  published  for  the  first  time  the  secret 
Barnardiston  minute,  we  challenged  it  to  prove  the 
existence  of  a  military  agreement  between  Belgium 
and  England.  It  did  not  take  up  this  challenge, 
and  the  facsimile  documents  which  it  published  are 
wholly  irrelevant.  It  would  be  impossible  to  find  in 
them  any  evidence  that  Belgium  had  not  observed  the 
strictest  obligations  of  neutrality. 

What  was  it  that  in  fact  took  place  in  1906? 

Colonel  Barnardiston,  British  Military  Attache, 
called  at  the  end  of  January  at  the  office  of  the  Chief 
of  the  1st  Division  of  the  Ministry  of  War,  General 
Ducarne,  and  had  an  interview  with  him.  Colonel 
Barnardiston  asked  General  Ducarne  whether  Belgium 
was  ready  to  defend  her  neutrality.  He  received  an 
affirmative  reply.  He  then  proceeded  to  enquire  the 
number  of  days  necessary  for  the  mobilization  of  our 
army. 


THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY       77 

"It  can  take  place  in  four  days,"  said  the  General. 

"How  many  men  can  you  mobilize?"  pursued  the 
Military  Attache. 

The  General  said  that  we  could  mobilize  180,000  men. 

After  having  received  this  information,  Colonel 
Barnardiston  declared  that  in  the  event  of  the  violation 
of  our  neutrality  by  Germany,  England  would  send  into 
Belgium  100,000  men  for  our  defence. 

He  still  pressed  the  question  whether  we  were  ready 
to  resist  a  German  invasion. 

The  General  replied  that  we  were  ready  to  defend 
Liege  against  Germany,  Namur  against  France,  and 
Antwerp  against  England. 

Several  interviews  followed  between  the  Chief  of 
the  General  Staff  and  the  Military  Attache  on  the 
subject  of  the  measures  that  England  would  take  with 
a  view  to  giving  effect  to  her  guarantee. 

In  examining  this  question  the  Chief  of  the  General 
Staff  was  only  performing  his  most  elementary  duty, 
namely,  to  examine  in  detail  the  dispositions  which 
would  enable  Belgium  to  resist,  either  alone  or  with 
the  help  of  her  guarantors,  a  violation  of  her  neutrality. 

On  the  10th  May,  1906,  General  Ducarne  addressed 
to  the  Minister  for  War  a  minute  on  his  interviews  with 
the  British  Military  Attache.  In  this  minute  the 
point  is  twice  emphasized  that  the  sending  of  British 
help  into  Belgium  was  contingent  on  the  violation  of 
Belgian  neutrality.  Nay,  more,  a  marginal  note  by 
the  Minister  (which  by  a  refinement  of  bad  faith  on 
the  part  of  the  Norddeutsche  Allgemeine  was  left  un- 
translated in  order  that  it  might  escape  the  notice  of 
most  German  readers)  establishes  incontestably  that 


78       THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY 

the  entry  of  British  troops  into  Belgium  would  only 
take  place  after  the  violation  of  our  neutrality  by  Ger- 
many. The  course  of  events  has  sufficiently  proved 
that  these  anticipations  were  justified. 

These  very  natural  interviews  between  the  Chief 
of  the  General  Staff  and  the  British  Military  Attache 
simply  show  the  serious  apprehensions  of  Great  Brit- 
ain on  the  subject  of  a  possible  violation  by  Germany 
of  Belgian  neutrality. 

Were  these  apprehensions  legitimate?  To  be  con- 
vinced on  this  point  it  is  only  necessary  to  read  the 
works  of  the  great  German  military  writers  of  the  time : 
Von  Bernhardi,  Von  Schliefenbach  and  Von  der  Goltz. 

Were  the  interviews  between  General  Ducarne  and 
Colonel  Barnardiston  followed  by  any  convention  or 
agreement? 

This  question  is  answered  for  us  by  Germany  her- 
self in  the  document  which  she  has  published  in  the 
Norddeutsche  Allgemeine  Zeitung  of  the  25th  October. 

This  document  relates  to  an  interview  between  Gen- 
eral Jungbluth  and  Colonel  Bridges,  and  furnishes 
striking  evidence  that  the  interview  which  took  place 
in  1912  on  the  subject  of  putting  into  effect  England's 
guarantee  had  no  result,  and  matters  were  at  the  same 
stage  as  they  had  been  left  six  years  before  in  1906. 
No  document  could  more  clearly  establish  the  loyalty 
with  which  the  Belgian  Government  fulfilled  their 
international  obligations.  Colonel  Bridges  had  ap- 
parently said  that  since,  in  view  of  recent  developments, 
we  were  not  able  to  defend  our  neutrality,  the  British 
Government  would  have  immediately  landed  troops  on 
our  coast,  even  if  we  had  not  asked  for  help.  To  which 


THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY       79 

General  Jungbluth  is  said  to  have  immediately  replied, 
"But  you  could  not  disembark  troops  on  our  coast 
without  our  consent." 

Should  so  great  an  importance  be  attached  to  the 
views  of  a  military  attache  which,  we  are  in  a  position 
to  prove,  had  never  been  submitted  to  the  British 
Foreign  Office? 

Did  he  hold  the  view,  which  we  hold  to  be  false, 
although  it  is  maintained  by  certain  writers,  that  in  the 
case  of  a  violation  of  neutrality  the  intervention  of  a 
guarantor  is  justified,  even  in  the  absence  of  an  appeal 
from  the  country  whose  neutrality  has  been  guaranteed? 

We  do  not  know.  One  thing  is  certain,  namely, 
that  the  Military  Attache  did  not  persist  in  face  of  the 
General's  objections. 

Was  Belgium  bound  to  acquaint  her  guarantors 
with  these  interviews? 

As  to  the  first  interview,  Colonel  Barnardiston  was 
not  in  a  position  to  enter  into  an  agreement,  nor  was 
General  Ducarne  in  a  position  to  register  a  promise  of 
help.  The  incriminating  conversations,  moreover,  were 
of  a  purely  military  character  and  could  have  had  no 
political  significance  whatever.  They  were  never  con- 
sidered by  the  Government  and  only  became  known 
long  afterward  to  the  British  Foreign  Office. 

As  to  the  interview  between  General  Jungbluth  and 
Colonel  Bridges,  ought  the  Powers  to  have  been 
warned  that  the  latter  had  expressed  an  opinion  in 
which  neither  the  Belgian  nor  the  British  Govern- 
ment would  concur,  and  against  which  General  Jung- 
bluth had  immediately  protested  without  his  visitor 
having  thought  it  necessary  to  press  the  point? 


80       THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY 

The  would-be  "justification"  of  Germany  falls  back 
against  herself.  In  his  speech  of  the  4th  August  in 
the  Reichstag,  and  in  his  interview  the  day  before 
with  the  British  Ambassador,  the  Imperial  Chancellor 
declared  that  the  reason  for  the  attack  on  Belgium 
was  strategical  necessity. 

That  is  our  case. 

Before  leaving  Ostend,  the  Belgian  Government  addressed 
the  following  proclamation  to  the  people: 

PROCLAMATION 
CITIZENS, 

For  nearly  two  and  a  half  months,  at  the  cost  of 
heroic  efforts,  Belgian  soldiers  have  been  defending 
inch  by  inch  the  soil  of  their  country.  The  enemy  was 
fully  reckoning  on  annihilating  our  army  at  Antwerp, 
but  this  hope  was  falsified  by  a  retreat  which  was 
carried  out  in  perfect  order  and  calmness  and  we  thus 
ensured  the  preservation  of  our  military  forces  which 
will  continue  to  strive  without  ceasing  for  the  most 
just  and  noble  of  causes. 

Henceforth  these  forces  will  operate  on  our  southern 
frontier  where  they  will  be  supported  by  the  Allies. 
With  their  brave  help  the  victory  of  Right  is  certain. 

Nevertheless,  the  circumstances  of  the  moment 
require  to-day  a  new  ordeal  in  addition  to  the  sacri- 
fices already  made  by  the  Belgian  nation  with  a  courage 
which  is  only  equalled  by  the  depth  of  the  sacrifice. 
At  the  risk  of  furthering  the  plans  of  the  invader  it 
is  necessary  for  the  Government  to  establish  itself 
provisionally  in  a  place  where,  in  touch  on  the  one 
hand  with  the  Belgian  army,  and  on  the  other  hand 


THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY       81 

with  those  of  France  and  England,  it  can  continue  to 
carry  out  its  functions  and  preserve  the  continuity 
of  national  sovereignty. 

That  is  why  the  Government  is  to-day  leaving 
Ostend  with  a  grateful  recollection  of  the  welcome  that 
it  has  received  in  that  town.  It  will  be  provisionally 
established  at  Havre,  where  the  generous  friendship 
of  the  Government  of  the  French  Republic  assures 
for  it  both  its  sovereign  rights  and  also  the  unrestricted 
exercise  of  its  authority  and  the  performance  of  its  duty. 

CITIZENS, 

This  temporary  ordeal  which  our  patriotism  has 
to-day  to  face  will,  we  are  convinced,  be  promptly 
avenged.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Belgian  public 
services  will  continue  to  exercise  their  functions  so 
far  as  circumstances  admit.  The  King  and  his  Govern- 
ment rely  on  your  wisdom  and  patriotism.  Do  you 
on  your  side  rely  on  our  ardent  devotion,  on  the  valour 
of  our  army,  and  on  the  help  of  our  Allies,  to  hasten 
the  hour  of  our  common  deliverance? 

Our  dear  country,  betrayed  and  odiously  treated 
by  one  of  the  Powers  that  had  sworn  to  guarantee  her 
neutrality,  awakens  an  ever-growing  admiration  through- 
out the  whole  world.  Thanks  to  the  unity,  courage, 
and  foresight  of  all  her  children  she  will  remain  worthy 
of  this  admiration,  which  is  her  comfort  to-day.  To- 
morrow she  will  arise  from  her  ordeals  greater  and  more 
beautiful  for  having  suffered  in  the  cause  of  justice, 
honour,  and  civilization  itself. 

Long  live  Belgium,  free  and  independent. 

Ostend,  13th  October,  1914. 


82       THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY 

The  Minister  for  War,  Ch.  de  Broqueville;  The 
Minister  of  Justice,  H.  Carton  de  Wiart;  The  Minister 
for  Foreign  Affairs,  J.  Davignon;  The  Minister  of  the 
Interior,  P.  Berry er;  The  Minister  of  Science  and  Arts, 
P.  Poullet;  The  Minister  of  Finance,  A.  Van  de  Vyvere; 
The  Minister  for  Agriculture  and  Public  Works,  G. 
Helleputte;  The  Minister  for  Industry  and  Labour, 
Arm.  Hubert;  The  Minister  for  Railways,  Marine, 
Posts,  and  Telegraphs,  P.  Seghers;  The  Minister  for 
Colonies,  J.  Renkin. 

The  following  members  of  the  diplomatic  corps  who 
had  accompanied  the  Government  to  Antwerp  and 
Ostend  have  followed  it  to  Havre : — 

His  Excellency  Monsignor  Tacci,  Papal  Ambassador; 
His  Excellency  M.  Djuvara,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and 
Minister  Plenipotentiary  to  H.  M.  The  King  of  Ru- 
mania; His  Excellency  Prince  Koudacheff,  Envoy 
Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  to  H.  M. 
The  Emperor  of  Russia;  His  Excellency  M.  Klobu- 
kowski,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Pleni- 
potentiary to  H.  M.  The  King  of  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland,  Emperor  of  India;  His  Excellency  M.  Le 
Jonkheer  de  Weede,  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 
Plenipotentiary  to  H.  M.  The  Queen  of  the  Nether- 
lands; His  Excellency  Nousret  Sadoullah  Bey,  Envoy 
Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  to  H.  M. 
The  Sultan  of  Turkey;  His  Excellency  M.  Carignani, 
Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 
to  H.  M.  The  King  of  Italy;  M.  Speridan  Levidis, 
Resident  Minister  to  H.  M.  The  King  of  Greece; 
M.  Chiyuki  Yamanaka,  Japanese  Charge  d'Affaires; 


THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY       83 

M.  Leif-Bogh,  Norwegian  Charge  d' Affaires;  M.  Al- 
fredo Viel,  Consul-General  attached  to  the  Chilian 
Legation. 

Military  operations  having  compelled  the  Government  to 
establish  its  seat  provisionally  at  Havre,  the  President  of 
the  French  Republic  was  informed  of  this  decision  and  at 
once  replied  in  the  following  letter  addressed  to  His 
Majesty  the  King: — 

Bordeaux,  llth  October,  1914. 
His  MAJESTY  KING  ALBERT, 

Ostend, 

I  have  just  been  informed  of  the  decision  taken  by 
the  Royal  Government.  The  Government  of  the 
Republic  is  profoundly  moved  and  will  immediately 
take  all  necessary  steps  to  ensure  that  Your  Majesty 
and  Your  Ministers,  during  their  sojourn  in  France, 
will  enjoy  independence  and  sovereignty.  I  should 
like  to  say  to  Your  Majesty  personally  how  proud  the 
French  are  to  offer  to  You,  until  the  hour  of  our  com- 
mon victory,  hospitality  in  the  town  which  you  have 
chosen,  and  I  beg  to  assure  you  of  my  unalterable 
friendship. 

RAYMOND  POINCARE. 


His  Majesty  The  King  at  once  replied  in  the  following 
terms: — 

Ostend,  12th  October,  1914. 
MONSIEUR  LE  PRESIDENT, 

I  am  deeply  touched  by  the  hospitality  which  France 
has  been  good  enough  to  extend  to  the  Belgian  Govern- 
ment and  with  the  steps  which  the  Government  of 
the  Republic  have  taken  to  assure  our  full  independence 
and  sovereignty.  We  await  the  hour  of  common 


84       THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY 

victory  with  an  unwavering  confidence.  We  fight 
side  by  side  for  a  just  cause  and  our  courage  will  never 
be  shaken. 

I  have  to  assure  you,  Monsieur  le  President,  of  my 
unalterable  affection. 

ALBERT. 

M.  de  Broqueville,  Minister  for  War,  who  remained 
with  His  Majesty  The  King  and  the  Army,  immedi- 
ately on  his  arrival  on  French  soil,  sent  the  following 
telegram  to  the  President  of  the  Republic  at  Bordeaux: 

Dunkirk,  14th  October,  1914. 
To  His  Excellency  MONSIEUR  POINCARE, 
President  of  the  French  Republic, 
Bordeaux. 

At  the  moment  when  the  fortune  of  arms  leads  the 
Royal  Government  to  the  hospitable  soil  of  the  great 
nation  that  is  befriending  Belgium,  that  Government 
has  the  honour  to  tender  to  the  Head  of  the  Republic 
an  expression  of  its  deepest  respect,  and  begs  you  to 
be  so  good  as  to  accept  the  assurance  of  its  unwavering 
confidence  in  the  triumph  of  right.  Belgium  rejoices 
that  proud  and  generous  France,  united  with  Great 
Britain  and  Russia,  should  champion  this  cause. 

CHARLES  DE  BROQUEVILLE 

The  President  of  the  Republic  replied  in  the  following 
terms  to  M.  de  Broqueville: — 

Bordeaux,  14th  October,  1914. 
To  His  Excellency  MONSIEUR  DE  BROQUEVILLE, 
Minister  for  War, 
Dunkirk. 

As  I  personally  assured  His  Majesty  King  Albert, 
France  is  proud  to  receive  on  her  soil  to-day  the 


THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY       85 

Government  of  a  noble  nation  which  is  with  such 
heroism  defending  its  national  independence  and  up- 
holding the  cause  of  international  law,  so  outrageously 
violated.  The  Government  of  the  Republic  does  not 
fail  to  identify  the  cause  of  Belgium  with  her  own, 
and  has  made  all  necessary  preparations  for  the  Royal 
Government  to  observe  the  free  exercise  of  its  powers 
in  the  town  of  Havre.  The  certainty  of  final  victory 
will  lighten  for  you,  as  for  the  French  districts  already 
invaded,  a  brief  ordeal  from  which  our  countries 
will  emerge  more  closely  united,  and  stronger  than 
before. 

RAYMOND  POINCAKE. 


On  Tuesday  the  13th  October,  1914,  at  8  p.  M.,  the 
members  of  the  Belgian  Government,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  M.  de  Broqueville,  Minister  for  War,  who 
stayed  with  the  King  and  the  Army,  arrived  at  Havre 
on  the  Belgian  mail  steamer,  Pieter-de-Coninck.  They 
were  accompanied  by  members  of  the  corps  diploma- 
tique,  by  M.  Schollaert,  President  of  the  Chamber  of 
Representatives  and  Minister  of  State,  and  by  MM. 
van  den  Heuvel,  Liebaert,  Cooreman,  Huysmans, 
Count  Goblet  d'Alviella,  Hymans  and  Vandervelde, 
Ministers  of  State. 

They  were  welcomed  in  the  name  of  the  French 
Government  by  His  Excellency  M.  Augagneur,  Min- 
ister of  Marine,  accompanied  by  Mr.  William  Martin, 
introducteur  des  ambassadeurs,  together  with  all  the 
officials  of  the  Department  of  Seine-Inferieure,  and 
the  town  of  Havre.  Military  honours  were  accorded 
to  the  members  of  the  Government. 


86       THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY 

Great  pains  had  been  taken  by  the  French  Govern- 
ment, and  thorough  preparations  had  been  made  for 
the  installation  of  the  Belgian  Ministers  and  their 
various  departmental  staffs  at  Sainte-Adresse.  This 
work  was  entrusted  by  the  French  Government  to 
M.  Hennion,  who  was  attached  to  the  Belgian  Govern- 
ment for  the  period  of  its  stay  at  Havre.  As  soon  as 
it  was  installed,  the  Government  addressed  to  the 
President  of  the  French  Republic  the  following  tele- 
gram:— 


Le  Havre,  14th  October,  1914. 

To  His  Excellency  MONSIEUR  LE  PRESIDENT  of  the 

French  Republic  at  Bordeaux. 

The  members  of  the  Belgian  Government  and  the 
Ministers  of  State  installed  at  Havre  beg  the  President 
of  the  French  Republic  to  accept  the  expression  of  its 
deepest  respect.  They  convey  their  cordial  thanks 
to  the  French  Government  for  having  been  so  good  as 
to  appoint  M.  Augagneur,  Minister  of  Marine,  to 
receive  them  on  their  arrival,  and  to  welcome  them  in 
your  name.  They  also  express  their  great  gratitude 
for  the  arrangements  made  to  facilitate  the  free  ex- 
ercise of  the  rights  and  duties  of  Belgian  national 
sovereignty,  pending  the  hour  not  far  distant  when  the 
final  triumph  of  right  will  sound.  They  will  never 
forget  with  what  noble  alacrity  France,  guarantor  of 
our  neutrality,  added  to  the  observance  of  her  plighted 
word  every  proof  of  fine  friendship  and  devoted  suc- 
cour. 

H.  CARTON  DE  WIART, 
Minister  of  Justice. 


THE  VIOLATION  OF  NEUTRALITY       87 

Monsieur  le  President  of  the  French  Republic  re- 
plied in  the  following  terms  :— 

Bordeaux,  15th  October,  1914. 

His  Excellency  MONSIEUR  CARTON  DE  WIART,  Belgian 

Minister  of  Justice,  Le  Havre. 

I  thank  you  and  your  colleagues  of  the  Royal  Govern- 
ment for  the  sentiments  that  you  have  so  kindly  ex- 
pressed. The  population  of  Havre,  by  the  welcome 
which  it  has  given  you,  has  interpreted  the  feelings  of 
the  whole  of  France.  By  virtue  of  treaty  obligations 
we  were  guarantors  of  Belgium's  neutrality,  and  we 
are  not  the  people  to  disavow  our  signature.  But 
the  heroism  of  your  people  and  the  blood  that  we 
have  poured  out  together  in  a  common  cause  have 
made  our  duty  still  more  sacred,  and  we  will  fulfil  it 
to  the  very  end  with  warm  and  brotherly  affection. 

RAYMOND  POINCARE. 


THE  ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 
IN  THE  PRESENT  WAR 

By  JAMES  BRYCE  (VISCOUNT  BRYCE) 

Author  of  "  The  Holy  Roman  Empire, "  "  The  American  Commonwealth, "  etc. 
Formerly  Ambassador  to  the  United  States. 


THE  ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN  IN  THE 
PRESENT  WAR 

WE  IN  Britain  who  respect  and  value  the  opinion 
of  the  free  neutral  peoples  of  Europe  and 
America  cannot  but  desire  that  those  peoples 
should  be  duly  informed  of  the  way  in  which  we  regard 
the  circumstances  and  possible  results  of  the  present 
conflict.  I  have  written  what  follows  in  compliance 
with  a  request  from  the  editor  of  a  leading  journal  in 
one  of  those  free  countries,  Switzerland,  but  what  has 
been  set  down  to  be  read  by  its  people  may  equally  well 
be  addressed  to  other  neutrals.  I  speak  in  these 
pages  with  no  more  authority  than  is  possessed  by 
any  private  citizen  of  my  country  who  has  had  a  long 
experience  of  public  affairs,  and  I  desire  only  to  express 
what  I  believe  to  be  its  general  sentiments.  Other 
writers  would  doubtless  convey  those  sentiments  in 
somewhat  different  language,  but  I  think  they  would  do 
so  to  much  the  same  general  effect,  for  the  British 
nation  is  at  this  crisis  united  in  its  views  and  purposes 
to  an  extent  almost  unprecedented  in  our  history. 

I  shall  not  enter  into  the  circumstances  which 
brought  about  the  war,  for  these  have  been  often 
stated  officially  and  can  be  readily  understood  from 
documents  already  published.  The  evidence  con- 
tained in  those  documents  appears  to  me  to  be  quite 

91 


92          ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 

convincing  to  any  impartial  mind.  All  that  need  be 
said  here  is  that  the  British  nation  did  most  assuredly 
neither  desire  nor  contemplate  war.  There  was  no 
hostility  to  Germany  except  among  a  very  few  persons 
who  thought  she  was  already  planning  to  attack  us. 
The  notion  which  has  been  assiduously  propagated 
by  the  German  Government,  that  England  desired 
to  bring  about  war  because  she  feared  the  commercial 
competition  of  Germany  and  hoped  to  destroy  German 
productive  industry  and  mercantile  prosperity,  is 
absolutely  untrue  and  without  the  slightest  foundation. 
It  is  indeed  an  absurd  suggestion,  for  every  man  of 
sense  knew  that  German  trade  had  brought  more 
advantage  to  our  trading  classes  than  any  damage 
German  competition  had  been  doing  to  them.  Eng- 
land had  far  more  to  lose  than  to  gain  by  war.  Ger- 
many was  her  best  foreign  customer,  taking  more 
goods  from  her  than  did  any  other  foreign  country. 
It  was  evident  that  a  war  would  involve  England  in 
pecuniary  losses  which  must  far  exceed,  and  have 
already  far  exceeded,  any  pecuniary  gain  her  traders 
could  possibly  have  made  by  the  crippling  of  German 
trade  for  many  a  year  to  come.  One  of  the  reasons 
why  many  Englishmen  thought  that  there  was  no 
likelihood  of  a  war  between  the  two  countries  was 
because  they  believed  that  both  countries  knew  what 
frightful  losses  to  each  the  war  would  bring.  More- 
over, the  fact  that  England  had  not  prepared  herself 
for  a  land  war  shows  how  little  she  expected  it.  She 
had  an  army  very  small  in  comparison  with  those 
of  the  Continental  powers,  and  no  store  of  guns  or 
shell  comparable  to  theirs;  so,  when  the  war  broke  out, 


ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN          93 

she  found  herself  suddenly  obliged  to  raise  a  large 
force  by  voluntary  enlistment  at  short  notice.  Few 
supposed  that  the  response  of  the  people  would  have 
been  so  general  and  so  hearty.  The  response  came 
because  the  nation  was  united  as  it  had  never  been 
united  before  in  support  of  any  war.  That  which 
united  it  was  the  invasion  of  Belgium;  and  that  which 
has  done  most  to  keep  it  united  and  to  stimulate  it  to 
exertions  hitherto  undreamt  of  has  been  popular 
indignation  at  the  methods  by  which  the  German  Gov- 
ernment has  conducted  hostilities  by  land  and  by  sea. 

The  German  Government  has  alleged  that  the 
British  fleet  had  been  mobilized  with  a  view  to  war. 
That  is  absolutely  untrue.  What  happened  was  this. 
The  fleet  had  been  going  through  its  usual  summer 
manoeuvres.  Just  as  these  manoeuvres  were  coming 
to  an  end,  a  threatening  war  cloud  unexpectedly  arose 
out  of  a  blue  sky.  Most  naturally,  the  ships  which 
would  in  the  usual  course  have  been  dispersed  to 
their  accustomed  peace  stations  were  commanded  not 
to  disperse  until  further  orders  were  received.  There 
was  in  this  no  evidence  of  any  purpose  to  embark  in 
war,  for  to  keep  the  fleet  together  was  in  the  circum- 
stances the  obvious  course. 

Now  let  me  try  to  state  what  are  the  principles 
which  animate  the  British  people,  making  them  be- 
lieve they  have  a  righteous  cause,  and  inducing  them, 
because  they  so  believe,  to  prosecute  the  war  with  their 
utmost  energy. 

There  is  a  familiar  expression  which  we  use  in 
England  to  sum  up  the  position  and  aims  of  a  nation. 
It  is  "  What  does  the  nation  'stand  for'  ?  "  What  are  the 


94          ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 

principles  and  the  interests  which  prescribe  its  course? 
What  are  the  ends,  over  and  above  its  own  welfare, 
which  it  seeks  to  promote?  What  is  the  nature  of  the 
mission  with  which  it  feels  itself  charged?  What 
are  the  ideals  which  it  would  like  to  see  prevailing 
throughout  the  world? 

There  are  five  of  these  principles  or  aims  or  ideals 
which  I  will  here  set  forth,  because  they  stand  out 
conspicuously  in  the  present  crisis,  though  they  are 
all  more  or  less  parts  of  the  settled  policy  of  Britain. 


The  first  of  these  five  is  liberty. 

England  and  Switzerland  have  been  the  two  modern 
countries  in  which  Liberty  first  took  tangible  form  in 
laws  and  institutions.  Holland  followed,  and  the 
three  peoples  of  the  Scandinavian  North,  kindred  to 
us  in  blood,  have  followed  likewise. 

In  England  Liberty  appeared  from  early  days 
in  a  recognition  of  the  right  of  the  citizen  to  be  pro- 
tected against  arbitrary  power  and  to  bear  his  share 
in  the  work  of  governing  his  own  community.  It  is 
from  Great  Britain  that  other  European  countries 
whose  political  condition  had,  from  the  end  of  the 
Middle  Ages  down  to  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century, 
been  unfavourable  to  freedom,  drew,  in  that  and  the 
following  century,  their  examples  of  a  government 
which  could  be  united  and  efficient  and  yet  popular, 
strong  to  defend  itself  against  attack,  and  yet  re- 
spectful of  the  rights  of  its  own  members.  The  British 
Constitution  has  been  the  model  whence  most  of  the 
countries  that  have  within  recent  times  adopted  con- 


ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN          95 

stitutional  government  have  drawn  their  institutions. 
Britain  has  herself  during  the  last  eighty  years  made 
her  consitution  more  and  more  truly  popular.  It  is 
now  as  democratic  as  that  of  any  other  European 
country,  and  in  their  dealings  with  other  countries, 
the  British  people  have  shown  a  constant  sympathy 
with  freedom.  They  showed  it  early  in  the  nineteenth 
century  to  Spanish  constitutional  reformers  and  to 
Greek  insurgents  against  Turkish  tyranny.  They 
showed  it  to  Switzerland  when  they  foiled  (in  1847) 
the  attempt  of  Metternich  to  interfere  with  her  inde- 
pendence. They  have  shown  it  markedly  within 
recent  years.  Britain  has  given  free  governments 
to  all  those  of  her  colonies  in  which  there  is  a  popula- 
tion of  European  origin  capable  of  using  them,  and 
this  has  confirmed  the  attachment  to  herself  of  those 
colonies.  Only  seven  years  ago,  after  a  war  with  the 
two  Dutch  Republics  of  South  Africa  which  ended  by  a 
treaty  making  them  parts  of  the  British  dominions, 
she  restored  self-government  to  the  Transvaal  and 
the  Orange  Free  State,  and  they  soon  afterward  be- 
came members  of  the  new  autonomous  confederation 
called  the  Union  of  South  Africa,  side  by  side  with 
the  old  British  colonies  of  the  Cape  and  Natal.  The 
first  Prime  Minister  of  that  Union  was  General  Louis 
Botha,  who  had  been  Commander-in-Chief  of  the  Boer 
forces  in  their  war  with  Britain.  What  has  been  the 
result?  When  the  present  war  broke  out,  the  German 
Government,  which  had  long  been  planning  to  induce 
the  Transvaal  and  the  Orange  Free  State  to  break 
away  from  Britain,  found  to  their  astonishment  that 
the  vast  majority  of  the  South  African  Boers  stood 


96          ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 

heartily  by  her.  General  Botha  took  command  of 
the  Union  armies,  and  defeated  the  German  forces  in 
the  German  colony  of  Southwest  Africa  without  any 
assistance  from  British  troops. 

There  had  long  been  troubles  and  controversies  con- 
nected with  the  state  of  Ireland,  for  although  she  was 
fully  represented  in  the  British  Parliament,  the  ma- 
jority of  the  population  expressed  a  desire,  which  ex- 
cited much  opposition,  to  have  autonomous  institu- 
tions granted  to  them.  It  had  been  found  hard  to 
find  an  acceptable  solution  of  this  question,  chiefly 
because  a  considerable  element  in  the  Irish  population 
did  not  wish  for  those  institutions.  But  the  question 
was  settled  in  1914  by  the  passing  of  an  Act  giving 
to  Ireland  (subject  to  certain  safeguards  and  provisions 
not  yet  settled  in  detail)  a  local  Parliament  as  a  satis- 
faction to  national  sentiment  and  to  the  desire  of  a 
majority  for  that  kind  of  autonomy  which  they  had 
asked  for  through  their  representatives  in  Parliament. 
There,  again,  what  has  been  the  result?  Ireland,  on 
whose  disaffection  to  the  United  Kingdom  the  German 
Government  had  been  counting,  has  shown  herself 
when  the  war  broke  out  to  be  thoroughly  loyal.  Prot- 
estants and  Roman  Catholics  have  vied  with  one 
another  in  volunteering  into  the  new  armies  which 
have  been  raised  during  the  last  twelve  months.  Some 
of  the  most  powerful  speeches  made  in  defence  of 
the  war  have  come  from  the  leaders  of  the  Irish  Na- 
tionalists. Some  of  the  finest  deeds  of  valour  have 
been  done  by  Irish  regiments.  These  are  the  fruits 
of  Liberty  as  Britain  has  understood  it  and  practised 
it. 


ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN          97 

ii 

Britain  stands  for  the  principle  of  Nationality. 
She  has  always  given  her  sympathy  to  the  efforts  of  a 
people  restless  under  a  foreign  dominion  to  deliver 
themselves  from  the  stranger  and  to  be  ruled  by  a 
government  of  their  own.  The  efforts  of  Greece  from 
1820  till  her  liberation  from  the  Turks,  the  efforts 
of  Italy  to  shake  off  the  hated  yoke  of  Austria  and 
attain  national  unity  under  an  Italian  King,  found 
their  warmest  support  in  England.  English  Liberals 
gave  their  sympathy  to  national  movements  in  Hun- 
gary and  Poland.  They  gave  that  sympathy  also 
to  the  German  movement  for  national  unity  from  1848 
to  1870,  for  in  those  days  that  movement  was  led 
by  German  Liberals  of  lofty  aims  who  did  not  desire, 
as  the  recent  rulers  of  Germany  have  desired,  to  make 
their  national  strength  a  menace  to  the  peace  and 
security  of  their  neighbours.  In  India,  England  has 
long  ceased  to  absorb  into  her  dominions  the  native 
States,  and  has  been  seeking  only  to  guide  the  rulers 
of  those  States  into  the  paths  of  just  and  humane 
administration,  while  leaving  their  internal  affairs  to 
their  own  native  governments.  Representative  in- 
stitutions like  those  of  England  herself  cannot  be  ex- 
tended to  the  numerous  races  that  compose  the  Indian 
population,  because  they  are  not  yet  fit  for  such  in- 
stitutions. A  firm  and  impartial  hand  is  indeed  needed 
to  keep  the  peace  among  them.  But  the  British  Gov- 
ernment in  India  regards,  and  has  long  regarded,  its 
power  as  a  trust  to  be  used  for  the  benefit  of  the  people, 
and  in  recent  years  efforts  have  been  made  to  asso- 


98          ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 

ciate  the  people  more  and  more  with  the  work  of  the 
higher  branches  of  administration  and  legislation. 
Native  judges  sit  beside  European  judges  in  the  highest 
courts,  while  the  vast  mass  of  local  administration  is 
conducted  by  native  officials  and  native  judges.  No 
tribute  or  revenue  of  any  kind  is  drawn  by  England 
from  India  or  from  any  of  those  colonies  which  the 
Home  Government  controls.  The  happy  results  of 
this  policy  have  been  seen  in  the  steady  increase  of  the 
confidence  and  good  will  of  the  native  rulers  and 
aristocracy  of  India  to  the  British  Government,  so 
that  when  the  present  war  broke  out  all  those  rulers  at 
once  offered  military  aid.  Large  Indian  forces  gladly 
came  to  fight,  and  fought  most  gallantly,  beside  the 
British  forces  in  France. 

I  do  not  claim  that  these  successes  attained  by  Brit- 
ish ideas  and  methods  are  due  to  any  innate  and 
peculiar  merits  of  British  character.  They  may  be 
largely  ascribed  to  the  fact  that  the  insular  position 
and  the  political  and  social  conditions  of  England 
enabled  her,  earlier  than  most  other  peoples,  both  to 
attain  constitutional  liberty  and  to  learn  to  love  it 
and  trust  it.  She  has  had  long  experience  and  has  prof- 
ited by  experience.  She  has  had  cause  to  see  how  much 
better  it  is  to  govern  by  justice  and  in  a  fair  and  gen- 
erous spirit  than  to  rely  entirely  on  brute  force.  Once  in 
her  history,  140  years  ago,  she  lost  the  North  American 
colonies  because,  in  days  when  British  freedom  was  less 
firmly  established  than  it  is  now,  a  narrow-minded  and 
obstinate  King  induced  his  Government  to  treat  those 
colonies  with  unwise  harshness.  She  has  never  for- 
gotten that  lesson,  and  has  more  and  more  come  to 


ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN          99 

see  that  freedom  and  nationality  are  a  surer  basis  for 
contentment  and  loyalty  than  is  the  application  of 
force.  Compare  with  the  happy  results  that  have 
followed  the  instances  I  have  mentioned  of  respect  for 
liberty  and  national  sentiment  in  the  cases  of  South 
Africa  and  Ireland  and  India,  as  well  as  in  the  self- 
governing  colonies,  the  results  in  North  Schleswig,  in 
Posen,  in  Alsace-Lorraine,  of  the  opposite  policy  of  force 
sternly  applied  by  Prussian  statesmen  and  soldiers. 

in 

England  stands  for  the  Maintenance  of  Treaty 
Obligations  and  of  those  rights  of  the  smaller  nations 
which  rest  upon  such  obligations.  The  circumstances 
of  the  present  war,  which  saw  Belgium  suddenly  at- 
tacked by  a  Power  that  had  itself  solemnly  guaranteed 
the  neutrality  of  Belgian  territory,  summoned  Eng- 
land to  stand  up  for  the  defence  of  those  rights  and 
obligations.  Her  people  feel  that  the  good  faith  of 
treaties  is  the  only  foundation  on  which  peace  between 
nations  can  rest,  and,  especially,  is  the  only  guarantee 
for  the  security  of  those  which  do  not  maintain  large 
armies.  We  recognize  the  value  of  the  smaller  States, 
knowing  what  they  have  done  for  the  progress  of  man- 
kind, grateful  for  the  examples  set  by  many  of  them 
of  national  heroism  and  of  achievements  in  science, 
literature,  and  art.  So  far  from  desiring  to  see  the 
smaller  peoples  absorbed  into  the  larger,  as  German 
theorists  appear  to  wish,  we  believe  that  the  world 
would  profit  if  there  were  in  it  a  greater  number  of  small 
peoples,  each  developing  its  own  type  of  character  and 
its  own  forms  of  thought  and  art. 


100        ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 

Both  these  principles — the  observance  of  treaties 
and  the  rights  of  the  smaller  neutral  States — have  been 
raised  in  the  sharpest  form  by  the  unprovoked  invasion 
of  Belgium  only  two  days  after  the  German  Minister  at 
Brussels  had  lulled  the  uneasiness  of  the  Belgian  Gov- 
ernment by  his  pacific  assurances.  Such  conduct 
was  a  threat  to  every  neutral  nation.  That  which 
befell  Belgium  might  have  befallen  Switzerland  or 
Holland  had  Germany  decided  that  it  was  to  her 
interests  to  attack  either  of  them  for  the  sake  of 
securing  a  passage  for  her  armies.  England  was 
obliged  to  come  to  Belgium's  support  and  fulfil  the 
obligation  she  had  herself  contracted  to  defend  the 
neutrality  of  the  country  unrighteously  attacked. 
It  would  be  superfluous  to  say,  if  the  German  Govern- 
ment had  not  endeavoured  to  deceive  its  own  subjects 
and  other  nations  by  a  gross  misrepresentation  of  the 
facts,  that  England  never  had  the  least  intention  of 
entering  Belgium,  except  to  protect  it  should  its 
territory  be  violated.  The  conversations  which  took 
place  between  British  officers  and  Belgian  authorities 
some  time  beforehand,  referred,  as  the  published  text 
clearly  proves,  only  to  the  case  of  an  invasion  of  Bel- 
gium by  Germany,  and  were  intended  merely  to  provide 
for  that  contingency,  which  was  deemed  possible, 
though  we  hoped  that  it  never  would  arise.  The 
charge  made  by  the  German  Government  that  England 
had  planned  with  Belgian  Ministers  to  attack  Ger- 
many through  Belgium  is  therefore  absolutely  base- 
less. When  the  German  armies  suddenly  crossed  the 
Belgian  frontier,  carrying  slaughter  and  destruction 
in  their  train,  an  issue  of  transcendent  importance  was 


ATTITUDE  OF  GB^AT  ^BKlfAlN        101 


raised.  Can  treaties  be  violated  with  impunity? 
Is  a  nation  which,  trusting  to  the  protection  of  inter- 
national justice  and  treaty  obligations,  has  not  so 
armed  itself  as  to  be  able  to  repel  invasion,  obliged 
helplessly  to  submit  to  see  its  territory  overrun  and 
its  towns  destroyed?  If  such  violence  prevails,  what 
sense  of  security  can  any  small  nation  enjoy?  Will  it 
not  be  the  helpless  prey  of  some  stronger  Power, 
whenever  that  Power  finds  an  interest  in  pouncing 
upon  it?  What  becomes  of  the  whole  fabric  of  inter- 
national law  and  international  justice?  This  issue 
was  plainly  stated  by  the  Chancellor  of  the  German 
Empire  when  he  said  in  the  Reichstag  that  the  entrance 
of  German  troops  upon  Belgian  soil  was  "contrary  to 
the  rules  of  international  law,"  and  spoke  of  "the 
wrong  that  we  are  committing."  Belgium  was  bound 
by  honour  to  resist  invasion,  because  she  had  solemnly 
pledged  herself  to  the  other  Powers  to  maintain  neu- 
trality. It  was  the  condition  of  her  creation  and  her 
existence.  And  England,  obliged  by  honour  to  suc- 
cour Belgium,  has  thus  become  the  champion  of  inter- 
national right  and  of  the  security  of  the  smaller  nations. 
There  is  nothing  she  more  earnestly  desires  to  obtain  as 
a  result  of  this  war  than  that  the  smaller  States  should 
be  placed  for  the  future  in  a  position  of  safety,  in  which 
the  guarantees  for  their  independence  and  peace  shall 
be  stronger  than  before,  because  the  sanction  of  the  law 
of  nations  will  have  been  made  more  effective. 

IV 

England  stands  for  the  Regulation  of  the  Methods 
of  Warfare  in  the  interests  of  humanity,  and  especially 


102        ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 

for  the  exemption  of  non-combatants  from  the  suffer- 
ings and  horrors  which  war  brings.  Here  is  another 
issue  raised  by  the  present  crisis,  another  conflict  of 
opposing  principles.  In  the  ancient  world,  and  among 
semi-civilized  peoples  in  more  recent  times,  non- 
combatant  civilians  as  well  as  the  fighting  forces 
had  to  bear  those  sufferings.  The  men  were  killed, 
combatants  and  non-combatants  alike;  the  women 
and  children,  if  spared,  were  reduced  to  slavery.  That 
is  what  the  Turkish  Government — I  say  "the  Govern- 
ment" because  some  good  Muslims  disapprove — have 
been  doing  during  the  last  few  months  in  Asia  Minor 
and  Armenia,  on  a  far  larger  scale  than  even  the  mas- 
sacres perpetrated  by  Abdul  Hamid  in  1895-6.  They 
are  doing  it  systematically.  They  are  slaughtering  the 
men,  they  are  enslaving  some  of  the  women  by  selling 
them  in  open  market  or  seizing  them  for  the  harem, 
and  driving  the  rest,  with  the  children,  out  into  deserts 
to  perish  from  hunger.  In  Trebizond,  a  few  months 
ago,  they  seized  most  of  the  Armenian  population  of 
the  city,  of  both  sexes,  put  them  into  sailing  vessels, 
carried  them  out  to  sea,  and  drowned  them  all.  They 
are  deliberately  exterminating  the  whole  Christian 
population,  and  avow  this  to  be  their  policy,  although 
the  Christians  had  not  risen  against  them  or  given  any 
offence.  The  Turkish  Government  is,  of  course,  a 
thoroughly  barbarous  Government.  But  in  civilized 
Europe  Christian  nations  have  during  the  last  few 
centuries  softened  the  conduct  of  war  by  agreeing 
to  respect  the  lives  and  property  of  innocent  non- 
combatants,  and  thus,  although  the  scale  of  modern 
wars  has  been  greater,  less  misery  has  been  inflicted 


ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN        103 

on  inhabitants  of  invaded  territories.  Their  suffer- 
ings were  less  in  the  18th  century  than  in  the  17th, 
and  less  in  the  19th  than  in  the  18th.  In  the  war  of 
1870-71  the  German  troops  behaved  better  in  France 
than  an  invading  force  had  usually  behaved  in  similar 
circumstances.  Now,  however,  in  this  present  war, 
the  German  military  and  naval  commanders  have 
taken  a  long  step  backward  toward  barbarism.  In- 
nocent non-combatants  have  been  slaughtered  by 
thousands  in  Belgium  and  in  France,  and  the  only 
excuse  offered  (for  the  facts  of  the  slaughter  are  prac- 
tically admitted)  is  that  German  troops  have  sometimes 
been  fired  at  by  civilians.  Now  it  is  true  that  any 
civilian  who  takes  up  arms  without  observing  the  rules 
prescribed  for  civilian  resistance  is  liable  to  be  shot. 
The  rules  of  war  permit  that.  But  it  is  contrary  to  the 
rules  of  war,  as  well  as  to  common  justice  and  human- 
ity, to  kill  a  civilian  who  has  not  himself  sought  to 
harm  an  invading  force.  The  fact  that  some  other 
civilian  belonging  to  the  same  town  may  have  fired 
on  the  invaders  does  not  justify  the  killing  of  an 
innocent  person.  To  seize  innocent  inhabitants,  call 
them  "hostages"  for  the  good  behaviour  of  their  town, 
and  shoot  them  if  the  invaders  are  molested  by  persons 
whose  actions  these  so-called  "hostages"  cannot  con- 
trol, is  murder  and  nothing  else.  Yet  this  is  what  the 
German  commanders  nave  done  upon  a  great  scale. 

German  air-war  has  been  conducted  with  equal  in- 
humanity. Bombs  are  being  dropped  upon  unde- 
fended towns  and  quiet  country  villages,  in  places 
where  there  are  no  troops,  no  war  factories,  no  stores  of 
ammunition.  Hardly  a  combatant  has  suffered,  and 


104        ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 

the  women  and  children  killed  have  been  far  more 
numerous  than  the  male  non-combatants.  No  mili- 
tary advantage  has  been  gained  by  these  crimes. 
They  have  not  even  frightened  the  people  generally. 
They  have  only  aroused  indignation  at  their  purpose- 
less cruelty,  and  this  indignation  has  in  England  stimu- 
lated recruiting  and  strengthened  the  determination 
to  pursue  the  war  to  the  end.  The  killing  of  non- 
combatants  by  this  sort  of  warfare  has  been  a  blunder 
as  well  as  a  crime. 

The  same  retrogression  toward  barbarism  is  seen  in 
the  German  conduct  of  war  at  sea.  It  had  long  been 
the  rule  and  practice  of  civilized  nations  that  when  a 
merchant  vessel  is  destroyed  by  a  ship  of  war  because 
it  is  impossible  to  carry  the  merchant  vessel  into  the 
port  of  the  captor,  the  crew  and  the  passengers  of  the 
vessel  should  be  taken  off  and  their  lives  saved,  before 
the  vessel  is  sunk.  Common  humanity  prescribes 
this,  but  the  German  submarines  have  been  sinking 
unarmed  merchant  vessels  and  drowning  their  pas- 
sengers and  crews  without  giving  them  even  the  oppor- 
tunity to  surrender.  They  did  this  in  the  case  of  the 
Lusitania,  drowning  1,100  innocent  non-combatants, 
many  of  them  citizens  of  neutral  States,  and  they  have 
since  repeatedly  perpetrated  the  same  crime.  The 
same  thing  was  done  quite  recently  (apparently  by 
Austria)  in  the  case  of  the  Italian  passenger  ship 
Ancona.  This  is  not  war,  but  murder. 

These  facts  raise  an  issue  in  which  the  interests  of 
all  mankind  are  involved.  The  German  Government 
claims  the  right  to  kill  the  innocent  because  it  suits  their 
military  interests.  England  denies  this  right,  as  all 


ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN        105 

countries  ought  to  deny  it.  She  is  contending  in  this 
war  for  humanity  against  cruelty,  and  she  appeals  to 
the  conscience  of  all  the  neutral  peoples  to  give  her 
their  moral  support  in  this  contention.  Peoples  that 
are  now  neutral  may  suffer  in  future,  just  as  those 
innocent  persons  I  have  referred  to  are  suffering  now, 
by  these  acts  of  unprecedented  barbarity. 


England  stands  for  a  Pacific  as  opposed  to  a  Military 
type  of  civilization.  Her  regular  army  had  always 
been  small  in  proportion  to  her  population,  and  very 
small  in  comparison  with  the  armies  of  great  Con- 
tinental nations.  Although  she  recognizes  that  there 
are  some  countries  in  which  universal  service  may 
be  necessary,  and  times  at  which  it  may  be  necessary 
in  any  country,  she  has  preferred  to  leave  her  people 
free  to  follow  their  civil  pursuits,  and  had  raised  her 
army  by  voluntary  enlistment.  Military  and  naval 
officers  have  never,  as  in  Germany,  formed  a  class  by 
themselves,  have  never  been  a  political  power,  or 
exercised  political  influence.  The  Cabinet  Ministers 
placed  in  charge  of  these  two  services  have  always 
been  civilian  statesmen — not  Generals  or  Admirals — 
until  the  outbreak  of  the  present  war,  when,  for  the 
first  time,  under  the  stress  of  a  new  emergency,  a  pro- 
fessional soldier  of  long  experience  was  placed  at  the 
head  of  the  War  Department.  England  has  repeatedly 
sought  at  European  Conferences  to  bring  about  a 
reduction  of  war  armaments,  as  well  as  to  secure  im- 
proved rules  mitigating  the  usages  of  war;  but  has 
found  her  efforts  baffled  by  the  opposition  of  Ger- 


106        ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 

many.  In  none  of  the  larger  countries,  except  per- 
haps in  the  United  States,  are  the  people  so  generally 
and  sincerely  attached  to  peace. 

It  may  be  asked  why,  if  this  is  so,  does  England 
maintain  so  large  a  navy.  The  question  deserves  an 
answer.  Her  navy  is  maintained  for  three  reasons. 
The  first  is,  that  as  her  army  has  been  very  small  she 
is  obliged  to  protect  herself  by  a  strong  home  fleet 
from  any  risk  of  invasion.  She  has  never  forgotten 
the  lesson  of  the  Napoleonic  wars,  when  it  was  the 
navy  that  saved  her  from  the  fate  which  befell  so 
many  European  countries  at  Napoleon's  hands.  Were 
she  not  to  keep  up  this  first  line  of  defence  at  sea,  a 
huge  army  and  a  huge  military  expenditure  in  time 
of  peace  would  be  inevitable.  The  second  reason  is 
that  as  England  does  not  produce  nearly  enough  food 
to  support  her  population,  she  must  draw  supplies 
from  other  countries,  and  would  be  in  danger  of  starva- 
tion if  in  war  time  she  lost  the  command  of  the  sea. 
It  is,  therefore,  vital  to  her  existence  that  she  should 
be  able  to  secure  the  unimpeded  import  of  articles  of 
food.  And  the  third  reason  is  that  England  is  re- 
sponsible for  the  defence  of  the  coasts  and  the  com- 
merce of  her  colonies  and  other  foreign  possessions, 
such  as  India.  These  do  not  maintain  a  naval  force 
sufficient  for  their  defence,  and  the  mother  country  is 
therefore  compelled  to  have  a  fleet  sufficient  to  guar- 
antee their  safety  and  protect  their  shipping.  No 
other  great  State  has  such  far-reaching  liabilities, 
and,  therefore,  no  other  needs  a  navy  so  large  as 
Britain  must  maintain.  In  this  policy  there  is  no 
warlike  or  aggressive  spirit,  no  menace  to  other  coun- 


ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN        107 

tries.  It  is  a  measure  purely  of  defence,  costly  and 
burdensome,  but  borne  because  her  own  safety  and 
that  of  her  colonies  absolutely  require  it.  Neither 
has  Britain  used  her  naval  strength  to  inflict  harm  on 
any  other  countries.  In  time  of  peace  she  has  not 
tried  to  use  it  to  injure  the  commerce  of  her  chief 
industrial  competitors.  It  did  nothing  to  retard 
the  rapid  growth  of  the  mercantile  marines  of  Ger- 
many and  Norway,  both  of  which  have  been  immensely 
developed  in  recent  years.  The  freedom  of  the  seas 
has,  in  time  of  peace,  never  been  infringed  by  her. 
In  time  of  war  she  doubtless  exercises  those  rights  of 
maritime  blockade,  search,  and  capture  which  her  naval 
strength  enables  her  to  exert.  But  rights  of  blockade 
and  capture  have  always  been  exerted  by  every  naval 
power  in  war  time.  They  are  a  recognized  method  of 
war  and  were  exerted  in  the  American  Civil  War  fifty 
years  ago,  in  the  war  of  France  with  China,  in  the  war 
of  Chile  with  Peru,  and  in  the  more  recent  war  be- 
tween Japan  and  Russia.  They  are  not  rights  newly 
claimed  by  Britain,  and  they  have  been  exercised  with 
a  constant  respect  for  the  lives  of  non-combatants. 

So  far  from  using  her  sea-power  to  the  prejudice 
of  other  countries  in  peace  time,  and  trying  by  its  aid 
to  promote  her  own  commercial  interests,  Britain  is 
the  only  great  country  which  has  opened  her  doors 
freely  to  the  commerce  of  every  other  country.  Sixty 
years  ago  she  adopted,  and  has  ever  since  consistently 
practised,  the  policy  of  free  trade.  She  imposes  upon 
imports  no  duties  intended  to  protect  her  own  agri- 
culture or  her  own  manufactures.  She  gives  no  advan- 
tages to  her  own  shipping  in  her  own  ports,  she  pays  no 


108        ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 

bounties  to  her  own  shipping,  she  allows  even  coasting 
trade  between  her  own  ports  to  be  open  on  equal  terms 
to  the  ships  of  all  nations.  A  Dutch  or  Swedish 
or  Norwegian  vessel  may  trade  from  Newcastle  to 
London  as  freely  as  a  British  vessel.  And  this  free 
trade  policy  has  been  carried  out  consistently  in  all 
the  British  colonial  possessions.  Neither  in  India, 
nor  in  those  British  colonies  whose  tariffs  are  controlled 
by  the  mother  country,  are  duties  imposed  upon  foreign 
imports,  except  for  the  purpose  of  raising  revenue. 
Such  self-governing  dominions  as  Canada  and  Australia 
have  control  of  their  own  tariffs  and  impose  what 
duties  they  please — even  against  the  mother  country; 
but  that  is  a  part  of  the  self-government  which  these 
dominions  have  long  enjoyed. 

The  policy  of  free  trade  has  been  supported,  and 
is  valued,  in  Britain  not  only  on  economic  grounds, 
but  also  because  it  is  deemed  to  tend  toward  inter- 
national peace.  Richard  Cobden,  the  first  and  most 
powerful  champion  of  that  policy,  saw  in  that  its 
highest  value.  He  thought  that  it  would  so  link  the 
nations  together,  helping  them  to  know  one  another, 
enriching  them  all,  and  making  each  interested  in 
the  prosperity  of  the  other  (each  being  both  a  producer 
and  a  consumer,  each  supplying  the  other's  needs  and 
profiting  by  the  exchange),  that  all  would  be  reluctant 
to  break  the  peace  with  one  another.  This  idea — 
although  Cobden's  hopes  have  proved  to  be  too  san- 
guine— has  always  had  great  weight  in  British  com- 
mercial policy,  which  has  sought  for  no  exclusive 
advantages,  but  aimed  solely  at  a  field  open  to  all 
competitors. 


ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN        109 

As  an  industrial  people  the  English  desire  peace. 
They  have  never  made  military  glory  their  ideal. 
They  have  regarded  war,  not  like  Treitschke  and  his 
school,  as  wholesome  and  necessary,  but  as  an  evil, 
an  evil  which,  although  it  gives  an  opportunity  (as 
Europe  sees  to-day)  for  splendid  displays  of  patriotism 
and  heroic  valour,  is  the  cause  of  infinite  suffering  and 
misery  and  ought,  if  possible,  to  be  got  rid  of  from  the 
world.  The  killing  of  workers  and  the  destruction  of 
property  are  a  hideous  waste  of  human  effort.  War 
has  done  more  than  anything  else  to  retard  the  prog- 
ress of  mankind. 

Our  English  ideal  for  the  future  is  of  a  world  in  which 
every  people  shall  have  within  its  own  borders  a  free 
national  government  resting  on,  and  conforming  to, 
the  general  will  of  its  citizens,  a  government  able  to 
devote  its  efforts  to  improving  the  condition  of  the 
people  without  encroaching  on  its  neighbours,  or  being 
disturbed  by  the  fear  of  an  attack  from  enemies  abroad. 
Legislators  and  administrators  have  already  tasks 
sufficiently  difficult  in  reconciling  the  claims  of  dif- 
ferent classes,  in  adjusting  the  interests  of  capital 
and  labour,  in  promoting  health  and  diffusing  edu- 
cation and  enlightenment,  without  the  addition  of 
those  tasks  and  dangers  which  arise  from  the  terror  of 
foreign  war. 

There  is,  of  course,  a  certain  chauvinistic  element 
in  England,  as  in  all  countries,  which  finds  some  ex- 
pression in  newspapers  and  books.  There  are  some 
persons  with  a  deficient  respect  for  the  rights  of  other 
nations — persons  who  indulge  in  sentiments  of  hatred, 
persons  who  believe  in  force,  persons  who,  in  fact,  have 


110        ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 

what  is  now  known  as  the  "Prussian  view  of  the 
world,"  and  the  Prussian  preference  of  Might  to  Right. 
But  such  persons  are  in  England  comparatively  few; 
they  are  a  diminishing  quantity  and  they  command 
little  influence.  The  great  bulk  of  the  nation  does 
not  cherish  hatreds,  is  satisfied  with  what  it  possesses, 
does  not  intend  to  aggress  on  its  neighbours,  does  not 
seek  to  impose  its  own  type  of  civilization  on  the  world. 
Our  English  phrase  "Live  and  let  live"  expresses  this 
feeling.  Though  we  prefer  our  own  way  of  living  for 
ourselves,  we  do  not  think  it  therefore  the  best  for 
other  peoples  also,  and  no  more  wish  to  see  the  world 
all  English  than  we  wish  to  see  it  all  Prussian.  The 
British  people  did  not  enter  the  war  for  the  sake  of 
gaining  anything  for  themselves.  They  have  not  now 
fixed  their  mind  on  gaining  (so  far  as  concerns  objects 
specially  dear  to  themselves*)  anything  except  a  vin- 
dication of  the  sanctity  of  treaties,  a  fuller  security 
for  the  rights  of  neutral  nations,  compensation  to 
Belgium  for  the  injuries  inflicted  on  her,  and  adequate 
guarantees  of  future  peace  for  themselves  and  their 
colonies.  To  this  one  must  now  add — measures  that 
will  make  impossible  in  the  future  cruelties  and  op- 
pressions such  as  the  Turks  have  practised  upon  the 
Eastern  Christians. 

In  the  foregoing  pages  I  have  sought  to  describe 
what  I  believe  to  be  the  principles  and  feelings  and 
aims  of  the  British  people  as  a  whole.  Let  me  add  a 
few  words  of  a  more  personal  kind  to  explain  the 
sentiments  of  those  Englishmen  who  have  in  time  past 

*I  speak  of  course  only  of  what  regards  Britain's  own  aims,  not  of  what  primarily 
concerns  her  Allies. 


ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN        111 

known  and  admired  the  achievements  of  the  German 
people  in  literature,  learning,  and  science,  who  had 
desired  peace  with  them,  who  had  been  the  constant 
advocates  of  friendship  between  the  two  nations. 
Such  Englishmen,  who  do  not  cease  to  be  lovers  of 
peace  because  this  war,  felt  to  be  righteous,  commands 
their  hearty  support,  are  now  just  as  determined  as 
any  others  to  carry  on  the  war  to  victory.  Why? 
Because  to  them  this  war  presents  itself  as  a  conflict 
of  principles.  On  the  one  side  there  is  the  doctrine  that 
the  end  of  the  State  is  Power,  that  Might  makes 
Right,  that  the  State  is  above  morality,  that  war 
is  necessary  and  even  desirable  as  a  factor  in  progress, 
that  the  rights  of  small  States  must  give  way  to  the 
interests  of  great  States,  that  the  State  may  disregard 
all  obligations  whether  undertaken  by  treaties  or  pre- 
scribed by  the  common  sentiment  of  mankind,  and 
that  what  is  called  military  necessity  justifies  every 
kind  of  harshness  and  cruelty  in  war.  This  is  an  old 
doctrine — as  old  as  the  sophists  whom  Socrates  en- 
countered in  Athens.  It  has  in  every  age  been  held 
by  some  ambitious  and  unscrupulous  statesmen.  Many 
a  Greek  tyrant  of  antiquity,  many  an  Italian  tyrant 
in  the  Middle  Ages  and  the  Renaissance,  put  it  in 
practice.  Caesar  Borgia  is  the  most  striking  instance 
in  the  15th  century,  Frederick  the  Great  in  the  18th, 
Napoleon  Bonaparte  in  the  19th. 

On  the  other  side  there  is  the  doctrine  that  the  end 
of  the  State  is  Justice,  the  doctrine  that  the  State 
is,  like  the  individual,  subject  to  a  moral  law  and 
bound  in  honour  to  observe  its  promises,  that  nations 
owe  duties  to  one  another  and  to  mankind  at  large, 


ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 

that  they  have  all  more  to  gain  by  peace  than  by  strife, 
that  national  hatreds  are  deadly  things,  condemned 
by  philosophy  and  by  Christianity.  In  the  victory 
of  one  or  the  other  of  these  principles  the  future  of 
mankind  seems  to  us  to  be  at  stake. 

I  do  not  attribute  to  the  German  people  an  adher- 
ence to  the  former  set  of  doctrines,  for  I  do  not  know 
how  far  these  doctrines  are  held  outside  the  military 
and  naval  caste  which  has  now  unhappily  gained  con- 
trol of  German  policy,  and  I  cannot  believe  that  the 
German  people,  as  I  have  hitherto  known  them,  ever 
since  I  studied  at  a  German  university  more  than  fifty 
years  ago,  could  possibly  approve  of  the  action  of 
their  Government  if  their  Government  suffered  them 
to  know  the  facts  relating  to  the  origin  arid  conduct 
of  the  war  as  those  facts  are  known  to  the  rest  of  the 
world.  We  have  had  no  hatred  of  the  German  people. 
We  did  not  grudge  them  their  prosperity.  Neither 
have  we  any  wish  to  break  up  Germany,  destroying 
her  national  unity,  or  to  interfere  in  any  way  with 
her  internal  politics.  Our  quarrel  is  with  the  Ger- 
man Government.  We  think  it  a  danger  to  every 
peaceful  country  and  believe  that  in  fighting  against 
its  doctrines,  its  ambitions,  its  methods  of  warfare, 
we  and  our  allies  are  virtually  fighting  the  battle  of 
all  peace-loving  neutral  nations  as  well  as  our  own. 
We  must  fight  on  till  victory  is  won,  for  a  government 
which  scorns  treaties  and  wages  an  inhuman  warfare 
against  innocent  non-combatants  cannot  be  suffered 
to  prevail  by  such  methods.  A  triumphant  and  ag- 
gressive Germany,  mistress  of  the  seas  as  well  as  of 
the  land,  would  be  a  menace  to  every  nation,  even  to 


ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN        113 

those  of  the  western  hemisphere.  Be  this  as  it  may, 
the  facts  show  that  the  present  rulers  of  Germany 
have  acted  upon  the  former  set  of  doctrines  as  con- 
sistently as  ever  did  Frederick  or  Napoleon.  They 
seem  to  us  to  be  smitten  with  a  kind  of  mental  disease 
which  has  sapped  honour,  extinguished  pity,  and 
destroyed  their  sense  of  right  and  wrong.  They  in- 
vaded Belgium  without  provocation  and  slaughtered 
thousands  of  innocent  non-combatants.  They  have 
persisted,  against  the  protest  of  America,  in  drowning 
innocent  non-combatants  at  sea.  They  look  calmly 
on  while  the  Turkish  allies  whom  they  have  dragged 
into  the  war,  and  whose  action  they  could  restrain  if 
they  cared  to  do  so,  are  exterminating,  with  every 
cruelty  Turkish  ferocity  can  devise,  a  whole  Christian 
nation.  These  things  are  a  reversion  to  the  ancient 
methods  of  savagery  which  marked  the  warfare  of 
bygone  ages.  They  are  a  challenge  to  civilized  man- 
kind— to  neutrals,  as  well  as  to  the  now  belligerent 
States.  Neutral  nations  would  do  well  to  recognize 
this,  for  they  are  themselves  concerned.  The  same 
methods  may  be  hereafter  used  against  them  as  are 
being  used  now.  They  also  ought  to  desire  the  defeat 
of  any  and  every  government  which  adopts  such 
principles  and  practises  such  methods,  for  its  victory 
would  be  a  blow  to  morality  and  human  progress 
which  it  would  take  centuries  to  retrieve. 

Those  Englishmen  whose  views  I  am  seeking  to 
express,  recognizing  the  allegiance  we  all  owe  to  human- 
ity at  large,  and  believing  that  progress  is  achieved 
more  by  cooperation  than  by  strife,  are,  however, 
hoping  for  something  more  than  the  victory  of  their 


114        ATTITUDE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN 

own  country.  They  desire  to  see  the  world  relieved 
from  the  burden  of  armaments  and  from  that  constant 
terror  of  war  which  has  been  darkening  its  sky  for  so 
many  generations.  They  ask  whether  it  may  not  be 
possible,  after  the  war  has  come  to  an  end,  to  form 
among  the  nations  an  effective  League  of  Peace,  em- 
bracing smaller  as  well  as  larger  peoples — under  whose 
aegis  disputes  might  be  amicably  settled  and  the  power 
of  the  League  invoked  to  prevent  any  one  State  from 
disturbing  the  general  tranquillity.  The  obstacles 
in  the  way  of  creating  such  a  League  are  many  and 
obvious,  but  whatever  else  may  come  out  of  the  war, 
we  in  England  hope  that  one  result  of  it  will  be  the 
creation  of  some  machinery  calculated  to  avert  the 
recurrence  of  so  awful  a  calamity  as  that  from  which 
mankind  is  now  suffering. 


VI 
ETHICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  WAR 

By  GILBERT  MURRAY 

Reprinted  from  "  The  Inquirer,"  of  the  30th  October,  1915. 


VI 
ETHICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  WAR 

An  address  delivered  at  the  Triennial  meetings  of  the 
National  Conference  of  Unitarian,  Liberal  Christian, 
Free  Christian,  Presbyterian,  and  other  non-subscribing 
or  kindred  congregations,  in  London,  October  27,  1915. 

I  SHOULD  like  before  I  begin  to  express  to  you 
the  very  real  gratitude  I  feel  to  a  body  like  this 
in  asking  me  to  give  this  address,  and  in  treating 
one  whose  religious  views,  freely  expressed  in  books 
and  lectures,  are  probably  to  the  left  of  almost  all 
those  here  present,  not  as  an  outsider,  but  recognizing 
that  people  in  my  position  are  also  capable  of  a  re- 
ligious spirit,  and  of  seeking  after  truth  in  the  same 
way  as  yourselves.  I  believe  that  you  and  I  are  in 
real  and  fundamental  sympathy  both  over  religious 
questions  proper,  and  over  a  question  like  this  of  the 
war,  which  test  one's  ultimate  beliefs  and  the  real 
working  religion  by  which  one  lives.  I  think  that  we 
may  say  that  probably  all  here  do  begin,  in  their  own 
minds,  by  feeling  the  war  as  an  ethical  problem.  Cer- 
tainly that  is  the  way  it  appealed  to  me,  and  it  is  from 
that  point  of  view  I  wish  to  speak  to-night. 

Curiously  enough  I  remember  speaking  in  this  hall, 
I  suppose  about  fifteen  years  ago,  against  the  policy 
of  the  war  in  South  Africa.  I  little  imagined  then 

117 


118    ETHICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  WAR 

that  I  should  live  to  speak  in  favour  of  the  policy  of  a 
much  greater  and  more  disastrous  war,  but  that  is 
what,  on  the  whole,  I  shall  do.  But  I  want  to  begin 
by  facing  certain  facts.  Don't  let  us  attempt  to  bind 
ourselves  or  be  blinded  by  phrases  into  thinking  that 
the  war  is  anything  but  a  disaster,  and  an  appalling 
disaster.  Don't  let  us  be  led  away  by  views  which 
have  some  gleam  of  truth  in  them  into  believing  that 
this  war  will  put  an  end  to  war — that  it  will  convert 
Germany,  and  certainly  convert  Russia  to  liberal 
opinions,  that  it  will  establish  natural  frontiers  through- 
out Europe  or  that  it  will  work  a  moral  regeneration 
in  nations  which  were  somehow  sapped  by  too  many 
years  of  easy  living  in  peace.  There  is  some  truth, 
and  very  valuable  truth,  in  all  those  considerations, 
but  they  do  not  alter  the  fact  that  the  war  is,  as  I 
said,  an  appalling  disaster.  We  knew  when  we  entered 
upon  it  that  it  was  a  disaster — we  knew  that  we  should 
suffer,  and  that  all  Europe  would  suffer. 

Now  let  us  run  over  very  briefly  the  ways  in  which 
it  is  doing  evil.  Let  us  face  the  evil  first.  There  is, 
first,  the  mere  suffering,  the  leagues  and  leagues  of 
human  suffering  that  is  now  spreading  across  Europe, 
the  suffering  of  the  soldiers,  the  actual  wounded  com- 
batants, and  behind  them  the  suffering  of  non-combat- 
ants, the  suffering  of  people  dispossessed,  of  refugees,  of 
people  turned  suddenly  homeless  into  a  world  without 
pity.  Behind  that  you  have  the  sufferings  of  dumb 
animals.  We  are  not  likely  to  forget  that.  There  is 
another  side  which  we  are  even  less  likely  to  forget, 
and  that  is  our  own  personal  losses.  There  are  very 
few  people  in  this  room  who  have  not  suffered  in  that 


ETHICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  WAR     119 

direct,  personal  way;  there  will  be  still  fewer  by  the 
end  of  the  war.  I  don't  want  to  dwell  upon  that  ques- 
tion; the  tears  are  very  close  behind  our  eyes  when  we 
begin  to  think  of  that  aspect  of  things,  and  it  is  not 
for  me  to  bring  them  forward.  Think,  again,  of  the 
State's  loss,  the  loss  of  all  those  chosen  men,  not  mere 
men  taken  haphazard,  but  young,  strong  men,  largely 
men  of  the  most  generous  and  self-sacrificing  impulses 
who  responded  most  swiftly  to  the  call  for  their  loyalty 
and  their  lives.  Some  of  them  are  dead,  some  will 
come  back  injured,  maimed,  invalided,  in  various  ways 
broken.  There  is  an  old  Greek  proverb  which  exactly 
expresses  the  experience  that  we  shall  be  forced  to  go 
through,  "The  spring  is  taken  out  of  your  year." 
For  a  good  time  ahead  the  years  of  England  of  most 
of  Europe  will  be  without  a  spring.  In  that  con- 
sideration I  think  it  is  only  fair,  and  I  am  certain 
that  an  audience  like  this  will  agree  with  me,  to  add 
all  the  nations  together.  It  is  not  only  we  and  our 
allies  who  are  suffering  the  loss  there;  it  is  a  loss  to 
humanity.  According  to  the  Russian  proverb  "They 
are  all  sons  of  mothers,"  the  wildest  Senegalese,  the 
most  angry  Prussian.  And  that  is  the  state  that  we 
are  in.  We  rejoice,  of  course  we  rejoice  to  hear  of 
great  German  losses;  we  face  the  fact.  We  do  rejoice; 
yet  it  is  terrible  that  we  should  have  to;  for  the  loss  of 
these  young  Germans  is  also  a  great  and  a  terrible  loss 
to  humanity.  It  seems  almost  trivial  after  these 
considerations  of  life  and  death,  but  think  too  of 
our  monetary  losses;  of  the  fact  that  we  have  spent 
1,595  millions  and  that  we  are  throwing  away  money 
at  the  rate  of  nearly  five  millions  a  day.  Yet  just 


120    ETHICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  WAR 

think  what  it  means,  that  precious  surplus  with  which 
we  meant  to  make  England  finer  in  every  way — that 
surplus  is  gone. 

From  a  rich,  generous,  sanguine  nation  putting  her 
hopes  in  the  future,  we  shall  emerge  a  rather  poverty- 
stricken  nation,  bound  to  consider  every  penny  of 
increased  expenditure;  a  harassed  nation  only  fortunate 
if  we  are  still  free.  Just  think  of  all  our  schemes  of 
reform  and  how  they  are  blown  to  the  four  winds — 
schemes  of  social  improvement,  of  industrial  improve- 
ment; a  scheme  like  Lord  Haldane's  great  education 
scheme  which  was  to  begin  by  caring  for  the  health 
of  the  small  child,  and  then  lead  him  up  by  a  great 
ladder  from  the  primary  school  to  the  University! 
How  some  of  us  who  were  specially  interested  in  edu- 
cation revelled  in  the  thought  of  that  great  idea;  but 
it  was  going  to  cost  such  a  lot  of  money.  It  would 
cost  nearly  as  much  as  half  a  week  of  the  war !  Think 
what  riches  we  had  then,  and  on  the  whole,  although  we 
are  perhaps  the  most  generous  nation  in  Europe,  what 
little  use  we  made  of  them.  We  speak  of  spiritual 
regeneration  as  one  of  the  results  of  war,  but  here  too 
there  is  the  spiritual  evil  to  be  faced.  I  do  not  speak 
merely  of  the  danger  of  reaction.  There  will  be 
a  grave  danger  of  political  reaction  and  of  religious 
reaction,  and  you  will  all  have  your  work  cut  out  for 
you  in  that  matter.  The  political  reaction,  I  believe, 
will  not  take  the  form  of  a  mere  wave  of  extreme  Con- 
servatism; the  real  danger  will  be  a  reaction  against 
anything  that  can  be  called  mellow  and  wise  in  politics; 
the  real  danger  will  be  a  struggle  between  crude  mili- 
tarist reaction  and  violent  unthinking  democracy.  As 


ETHICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  WAR 

for  religion,  you  are  probably  all  anxious  as  to  what  is 
going  to  happen  there.  Every  narrow  form  of  re- 
ligion is  lifting  up  its  horns  again,  rank  superstition 
is  beginning  to  flourish.  I  am  told  that  fortune  tellers 
and  crystal  gazers  are  really  having  now  the  time  of 
their  lives.  It  will  be  for  bodies  like  yourselves  to  be 
careful  about  all  that.  But  besides  that  there  is  an- 
other more  direct  spiritual  danger.  We  cannot  go  on 
living  an  abnormal  life  without  getting  fundamentally 
disorganized.  We  have  seen  that,  especially  in  Ger- 
many; with  them  it  seems  to  be  a  much  stronger 
tendency,  much  worse  than  it  is  with  us;  but  clearly 
you  cannot  permanently  concentrate  your  mind  on 
injuring  your  fellow  creatures  without  habituating 
yourself  to  evil  thoughts.  In  Germany,  of  course, 
there  is  a  deliberate  cult  of  hatred.  There  is  a  process, 
which  I  won't  stop  to  analyze,  a  process  utterly  amaz- 
ing, by  which  a  highly  civilized  and  ordinarily  humane 
nation  has  gone  on  from  what  I  can  only  call  atrocity 
to  atrocity.  How  these  people  have  ever  induced  them- 
selves to  commit  the  crimes  in  Belgium  which  are 
attested  by  Lord  Bryce's  Commission,  even  to  organiz- 
ing the  flood  of  calculated  mendacity  that  they  pour 
out  day  by  day,  and  last  of  all  to  stand  by  passive  and 
apparently  approving,  while  deeds  like  the  new  Ar- 
menian massacres  are  going  on  under  their  aegis  and 
in  the  very  presence  of  their  consuls,  all  this  passes 
one's  imagination.  Now  we  do  not  act  like  that; 
there  is  something  or  other  in  the  English  nature 
which  will  not  allow  it.  We  shall  show  anger  and 
passion,  but  we  are  probably  not  capable  of  that 
organized  cruelty,  and  I  hope  we  never  shall  be.  Yet 


ETHICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  WAR 

the  same  forces  are  at  work.  I  do  not  want  to  dwell 
upon  this  subject  too  long,  but  when  people  talk  of 
national  regeneration  or  the  reverse,  there  is  one 
very  obvious  and  plain  test  which  one  looks  at  first 
and  that  is  the  drink  bill.  We  have  made  a  great 
effort  to  restrain  our  drinking;  large  numbers  of  people 
have  given  up  consuming  wine  and  spirits  altogether, 
following  the  King's  example.  We  have  made  a  great 
effort  and  what  is  the  result?  The  drink  bill  is  up 
seven  millions  as  compared  with  the  last  year  of  peace ! 
That  seven  millions  is  partly  due  to  the  increased  price; 
but  at  the  old  prices  it  would  still  be  up  rather  over 
two  millions.  And  ahead,  at  the  end  of  all  this,  what 
prospect  is  there?  There  is  sure  to  be  poverty  and 
unemployment,  great  and  long  continued,  just  as  there 
was  after  1815.  I  trust  we  shall  be  better  able  to  face 
it;  we  shall  have  thought  out  the  difficulties  more;  we 
who  are  left  with  any  reasonable  margin  of  subsistence 
will,  I  hope,  be  more  generous  and  more  clear-sighted 
than  our  ancestors  a  century  earlier.  But  in  any  case 
there  is  coming  a  time  of  great  social  distress  and 
very  little  money  indeed  to  meet  it  with.  We  shall 
achieve  no  doubt  peace  in  Europe,  we  shall  have 
probably  some  better  arrangement  of  frontiers,  but 
underneath  the  peace  there  will  be  terrific  hatred. 
And  in  the  heart  of  Europe,  instead  of  a  treacherous 
and  grasping  neighbour  we  shall  be  left  with  a  deadly 
enemy,  living  for  revenge. 

Now,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  do  not  think  that  I 
have  shirked  the  indictment  of  this  war.  It  is  a 
terrible  indictment;  and  you  will  ask  me  perhaps 
after  that  description,  if  I  still  believe  that  our  policy 


ETHICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  WAR     123 

in  declaring  war  was  right.  Yes,  I  do.  Have  I 
any  doubt  in  any  corner  of  my  mind  that  the  war 
was  right?  I  have  none.  We  took  the  path  of 
duty  and  the  only  path  we  could  take.  Some  people 
speak  now  as  if  going  on  with  the  war  was  a  kind  of  in- 
dulgence of  our  evil  passions.  The  war  is  not  an  indul- 
gence of  our  evil  passions;  the  war  is  a  martyrdom. 

Now,  let  us  not  exaggerate  here.  It  is  not  a  martyr- 
dom for  Christianity.  I  saw  a  phrase  the  other  day 
that  we  were  fighting  for  the  nailed  hand  of  One 
crucified,  against  the  "mailed  fist."  That  description 
is  an  ideal  a  man  may  carry  in  his  own  heart,  but,  of 
course,  it  is  an  exaggeration  to  apply  to  our  national 
position,  to  the  position  of  any  nation  in  international 
politics.  We  are  not  saints,  we  are  not  a  nation  of 
early  Christians.  Yet  we  are  fighting  for  a  great  cause. 
How  shall  I  express  it?  We  are  a  country  of  ripe 
political  experience,  of  ancient  freedom;  we  are,  with  all 
our  faults,  I  think,  a  country  of  kindly  record  and 
generous  ideals,  and  we  stand  for  the  established 
tradition  of  good  behaviour  between  nations.  We 
stand  for  the  observance  of  treaties  and  the  recog- 
nition of  mutual  rights,  for  the  tradition  of  common 
honesty  and  common  kindliness  between  nation  and 
nation;  we  stand  for  the  old  decencies,  the  old  humani- 
ties, "the  old  ordinance,"  as  the  King's  letter  put  it, 
"the  old  ordinance  that  has  bound  civilized  Europe 
together."  And  against  us  there  is  a  power  which,  as 
the  King  says,  has  changed  that  ordinance.  Europe 
is  no  longer  held  together  by  the  old  decencies  as  it 
was.  The  enemy  has  substituted  for  it  some  rule 
which  we  cannot  yet  fathom  to  its  full  depth.  You 


124    ETHICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  WAR 

can  call  it  militarism  or  Realpolitik  if  you  like;  it  seems 
to  involve  the  domination  of  force  and  fraud,  it  seems 
to  involve  organized  ruthlessness,  organized  terrorism, 
organized  mendacity.  The  phrase  that  comes  back  to 
my  mind  when  I  think  of  it  is  Mr.  Gladstone's  descrip- 
tion of  another  evil  rule — it  is  the  negation  of  God 
erected  into  a  system  of  government.  The  sort  of 
thing  for  which  we  are  fighting,  the  old  ordinance,  the 
old  kindliness  and  the  old  humanities — is  it  too  much 
to  say  that,  if  there  is  God  in  man,  it  is  in  these  things 
after  all  that  God  in  man  speaks? 

The  old  ordinance  is  illogical.  Of  course  it  is 
illogical.  It  means  that  civilized  human  beings  in 
the  midst  of  their  greatest  passions,  in  the  midst  of 
their  angers  and  rages,  feel  that  there  is  something 
deeper,  something  more  important  than  war  or  vic- 
tory— that  at  the  bottom  of  all  strife  there  are  some 
remnants  of  human  brotherhood.  Now,  I  do  not 
want  to  go  into  a  long  list  of  German  atrocities;  much 
less  do  I  want  to  denounce  the  enemy.  As  Mr.  Bal- 
four  put  it  in  his  whimsical  way:  "We  take  our  enemy 
as  we  find  him."  But  it  has  been  the  method  through- 
out this  war — the  method  the  enemy  has  followed,  to 
go  at  each  step  outside  the  old  conventions.  We  have 
sometimes  followed.  Sometimes  we  have  had  to  fol- 
low. But  the  whole  history  of  the  war  is  a  history  of 
that  process.  The  peoples  fought  according  to  cer- 
tain rules,  but  one  people  got  outside  the  rules  right 
from  the  beginning.  The  broken  treaty,  the  calculated 
ferocity  in  Belgium  and  northern  France,  the  killing 
of  women  and  non-combatants  by  sea  and  land  and 
air,  the  shelling  of  hospitals,  the  treatment  of  wounded 


ETHICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  WAR    125 

prisoners  in  ways  they  had  never  expected;  all  the 
doctoring  of  weapons  with  a  view  to  cruelty;  explosive 
bullets;  the  projectile  doctored  with  substances  which 
would  produce  a  gangrenous  wound;  the  poisoned 
gases;  the  infected  wells.  It  is  the  same  method 
throughout.  The  old  conventions  of  humanity,  the 
old  arrangements  which  admitted  that  beneath  our 
cruelties,  beneath  our  hatreds  there  was  some  common 
humanity  and  friendliness  between  us,  these  have 
been  systematically  broken  one  after  another.  Now 
observe;  these  things  were  done  not  recklessly  but  to 
gain  a  specific  advantage;  they  were  done  as  Mr. 
Secretary  Zimmermann  put  it  in  the  case  of  Miss 
Cavell,  "to  inspire  fear."  And  observe  that  in  many 
places  they  have  been  successful.  They  have  inspired 
fear.  Only  look  at  what  has  recently  happened  and 
what  is  happening  now  in  the  Balkans.  Every  one 
of  these  Balkan  States  has  looked  at  Belgium.  The 
German  agents  have  told  them  to  look  at  Belgium. 
They  have  looked  at  Belgium  and  their  courage  has 
failed  them.  Is  that  the  way  in  which  we  wish  the 
government  of  the  world  to  be  conducted  in  future? 
It  is  the  way  it  will  be  conducted  unless  we  and  our 
allies  stand  firm  to  the  end. 

All  these  points,  terrible  as  they  are,  seem  to  me 
to  be  merely  consequences  from  what  happened  at 
the  very  beginning  of  the  war.  There  are  probably 
some  people  here  who  differ  from  what  I  am  saying 
and  I  am  grateful  to  them  for  the  patient  way  in  which 
they  are  listening  to  me.  To  all  these  I  would  earnestly 
say:  "Do  not  despise  the  diplomatic  documents." 
Remember  carefully  that  the  diplomacy  of  July  and 


126    ETHICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  WAR 

August,  1914,  is  a  central  fact.  Remember  that  it  is 
the  one  part  of  the  history  antecedent  to  this  war 
which  is  absolutely  clear  as  daylight.  Read  the 
documents  and  read  the  serious  studies  of  them.  I 
would  recommend  specially  the  book  by  Mr.  William 
Archer,  called  "Thirteen  Days."  There  is  also  Mr. 
Headlam's  admirable  book,  "The  History  of  Twelve 
Days,"  and  the  equally  admirable  book  by  the  American 
jurist,  Mr.  Stowell.  There  the  issue  is  clear  and  the 
question  is  settled.  The  verdict  of  history  is  already 
given  in  these  negotiations.  There  was  a  dispute,  a 
somewhat  artificial  dispute  which  could  easily  have 
been  settled  by  a  little  reasonableness  on  the  part  of 
the  two  principals.  If  that  failed  there  was  the 
mediation  of  friends,  that  was  a  conference  of  the 
disinterested  nations — there  was  appeal  to  the  con- 
cert of  Europe.  There  was  the  arbitration  of  The  Hague 
— an  arbitration  to  which  Serbia  appealed  on  the  very 
first  day  and  to  which  the  Czar  appealed  again  on  the 
very  last.  All  Europe  wanted  peace  and  fair  settle- 
ment. The  Governments  of  the  two  Central  Powers 
refused  it.  Every  sort  of  settlement  was  overridden. 
You  will  all  remember  that  when  every  settlement  that 
we  could  propose  had  been  shoved  aside  one  after 
another  Sir  Edward  Grey  made  an  appeal  to  Germany 
to  make  any  proposal  herself — any  reasonable  proposal 
— and  we  bound  ourselves  to  accept  it,  to  accept  it 
even  at  the  cost  of  deserting  our  associates.  No  such 
proposal  was  made.  All  Europe  wanted  peace  and 
fair  dealing  except  one  Power,  or  one  pair  of  Powers 
if  you  so  call  it,  who  were  confident  not  in  the  justice 
of  their  cause  but  in  the  overpowering  strength  of  their 


ETHICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  WAR     127 

war  machine.  As  the  semi-official  newspaper  said: 
"Germany  does  not  enter  conferences  in  which  she  is 
likely  to  be  in  a  minority."  By  fair  dealing  they  might 
have  got  their  rights  or  a  little  more  than  their  rights. 
By  war  they  expected  to  get  something  like  the  su- 
premacy of  Europe.  In  peace,  with  their  neighbours 
reasonable,  in  no  pressing  danger,  Germany  deliber- 
ately preferred  war  to  fair  settlement;  and  thereby  in 
my  judgment  Germany  committed  the  primal  and 
fundamental  sin  against  the  brotherhood  of  mankind. 
Of  course  all  great  historical  events  have  complicated 
causes,  but  on  that  fact  almost  alone  I  should  base 
the  justice  and  the  necessity  of  our  cause  in  this  war. 
Other  objects  have  been  suggested :  that  we  are  fighting 
lest  Europe  should  be  subject  to  the  hegemony  of 
Germany.  Tf  Germany  naturally  by  legitimate  means 
grows  to  be  the  most  influential  power  there  is  no 
reason  for  any  one  to  fight  her.  It  is  said  we  are 
fighting  for  democracy  against  autocratic  govern- 
ment. I  prefer  democracy  myself,  but  one  form  of 
government  has  no  right  to  declare  war  because  it 
dislikes  another  form.  It  is  suggested  that  we  are 
fighting  to  prevent  the  break  up  of  the  Empire.  In 
that  case,  from  motives  of  loyalty,  of  course  we  should 
have  to  fight,  and  I  think  the  break  up  of  the  Empire 
would  be  a  great  disaster  to  the  world.  But  not  for 
any  causes  of  that  description  would  I  use  the  phrase 
I  have  used,  or  say  that  in  this  war  we  were  undergoing 
a  martyrdom.  I  do  use  it  deliberately  now:  for  I 
believe  no  greater  evil  could  occur  than  that  mankind 
should  submit,  or  should  agree  to  submit,  to  the  rule 
of  naked  force. 


128    ETHICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  WAR 

Now  I  would  ask  again  those  who  are  following 
me,  as  I  say,  with  patience,  but  I  have  no  doubt 
with  difficulty,  to  remember  that  this  situation — in 
spite  of  particular  details — is  on  the  whole  an  old 
story.  The  Greeks  knew  all  about  it  when  they  used 
the  word  "Hubris" — that  pride  engendered  by  too 
much  success  which  leads  to  every  crime.  Many 
nations  after  a  career  of  extraordinary  success  have 
become  mad  or  drunk  with  ambition.  "By  that  sin 
fell  the  angels."  They  were  not  so  wicked  to  start 
with  but  afterward  they  became  devils.  We  should 
never  have  said  a  word  against  the  Germans  before  this 
madness  entered  into  them.  We  liked  them.  Most 
of  Europe  rather  liked  and  admired  them.  But  as  I 
said  it  is  the  old  story.  There  have  been  tyrants. 
Tyrants  are  common  things  in  history.  BJoody  ag- 
gression is  a  common  thing  in  history  in  its  darker 
periods.  But  nearly  always  where  there  have  been 
tyrants  and  aggressors  there  have  been  men  and  peoples 
ready  to  stand  up  and  suffer  and  to  die  rather  than 
submit  to  the  tyrant,  and  the  voice  of  history  speaks 
pretty  clearly  about  these  issues  and  it  says  that  the 
men  who  resisted  were  right.  So  that,  ladies  and 
gentlemen,  as  with  our  eyes  open  we  entered  into 
this  struggle,  I  say  with  our  eyes  open  we  must  go  on 
with  it.  We  must  go  on  with  it  a  united  nation,  trust- 
ing our  leaders,  obeying  our  rulers,  minding  each  man 
his  own  business,  refusing  for  an  instant  to  lend  an 
ear  to  the  agitated  whispers  of  faction  or  of  hysteria. 
It  may  be  that  we  shall  have  to  traverse  the  valley 
of  death,  but  we  shall  traverse  it  until  the  cause  of 
humanity  is  won. 


ETHICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  WAR    129 

And  now,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  that  being  the 
cause,  we  are  girt  up  in  this  war  to  the  performance 
of  a  great  duty;  and  there  are  many  things  in  it  which, 
evil  as  they  are,  can  in  some  way  be  turned  to  good. 
It  lies  with  us  to  do  our  best  so  to  turn  them. 

If  we  take  the  old  analogy  from  biology  we  are  a 
community,  a  pack,  a  herd,  a  flock.  We  have  realized 
our  unity.  We  are  one.  I  think  most  of  us  feel  that 
our  lives  are  not  our  own;  they  belong  to  England. 
France  has  gone  through  the  same  process  to  an  even 
greater  degree.  Mr.  Kipling,  who  used  certainly  to 
be  no  special  lover  of  France,  has  told  us  that  there 
"the  men  are  wrought  to  an  edge  of  steel,  and  the  women 
are  a  line  of  fire  behind  them."  Our  divisions  before 
the  war  it  is  a  disgrace  to  think  of.  They  were  so 
great  that  the  enemy  calculated  upon  them,  and 
judged  that  we  should  not  be  able  to  fight.  These 
divisions  have  not  been  killed  as  we  hoped;  the  remnants 
of  them  are  still  living.  I  cannot  bear  to  speak  of 
them.  Let  us  think  as  little  as  possible  about  them, 
and  lend  no  ear,  no  patience  to  the  people  who  try  to 
make  them  persist.  As  for  the  division  of  class  and 
class,  I  think  there,  at  least,  we  have  made  a  great 
gain.  I  would  ask  you  to  put  to  yourselves  this 
test.  Remember  how  before  the  war  the  ordinary 
workman  spoke  of  his  employer  and  the  employer 
of  his  workmen,  and  think  notw  how  the  average 
soldier  speaks  of  his  officer  and  how  the  officer  speaks 
of  his  men.  The  change  is  almost  immeasurable. 
Inside  the  country  we  have  gained  that  unity,  outside 
in  our  relations  with  foreign  countries  we  have  also 
made  a  great  gain.  Remember  we  have  allies  now, 


130    ETHICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  WAR 

more  allies,  and  far  closer  allies  than  we  have  ever  had. 
We  have  learned  to  respect  and  to  understand  other 
nations.  You  cannot  read  those  diplomatic  documents 
of  which  I  spoke  without  feeling  respect  for  both  the 
French  and  Russian  diplomatists  for  their  steadiness, 
their  extreme  reasonableness,  their  entire  loyalty,  and 
as  you  study  them  you  are  amused  to  see  the  little 
differences  of  national  character  all  working  to  one  end. 
Since  the  war  has  come  on  we  have  learned  to  admire 
other  nations.  There  is  no  man  in  England  who 
will  ever  again  in  his  heart  dare  to  speak  slightingly 
or  with  contempt  of  Belgium  or  Serbia.  It  is  some- 
thing that  we  have  had  our  hearts  opened,  that  we, 
who  were  rather  an  insular  people,  welcome  other 
nations  as  friends  and  comrades.  Nay,  more,  we 
made  these  alliances  originally  about  a  special  prin- 
ciple on  which  I  would  like  to  say  a  sentence  or  two. 
That  is  the  principle  of  entente,  or  cordial  understand- 
ing, which  is  specially  connected  with  the  name  of  our 
present  Foreign  Secretary,  and,  to  a  slighter  extent, 
with  that  of  his  predecessor.  The  principle  of  entente 
has  been  explained  by  Sir  Edward  Grey  several  times, 
but  I  take  two  phrases  of  his  own  particularly.  It 
began  because  he  found  that  all  experience  had  shown 
that  any  two  great  empires  who  were  touching  each 
other,  whose  interests  rubbed  one  against  another 
frequently  in  different  parts  of  the  world,  had  no 
middle  course  open  to  them  between  continual  liability 
to  friction  and  cordial  friendship.  He  succeeded  in 
establishing  that  relation  of  perfect  frankness  and 
mutual  friendship  with  the  two  great  empires  with 
whom  our  interests  were  always  rubbing.  Instead  of 


ETHICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  WAR    131 

friction,  instead  of  suspicion  and  intrigue,  we  estab- 
lished with  our  two  old  rivals  a  permanent  habit  of 
fair  dealing,  frankness  and  good  will.  The  second  great 
principle  of  entente  was  this,  that  there  is  nothing 
exclusive  in  these  friendships.  We  began  it  with 
France,  we  continued  it  with  Russia,  we  achieved  it  in 
reality  although  not  in  actual  diplomatic  name  with 
the  United  States,  and  practically  also  with  Italy,  and 
any  one  who  has  read  the  diplomatic  history  will 
see  the  effort  upon  effort  we  made  to  establish  it 
with  our  present  enemies.  I  think  we  have  here 
some  real  basis  for  a  sort  of  Alliance  of  Europe — that 
sort  of  better  concert  for  which  we  all  hope.  One 
cannot  guess  details.  It  is  very  likely  indeed  that 
at  the  beginning  Germany  will  stay  outside  and  will 
refuse  to  come  into  our  kind  of  concert.  If  so  we  must 
"take  our  enemies  as  we  find  them."  The  fact  of 
there  being  an  enemy  outside  will  very  likely  make  us 
inside  hold  together  all  the  better  for  the  first  few  years. 
When  we  are  once  thoroughly  in  harness,  and  most 
nations  have  the  practice  of  habitually  trusting  one 
another  and  never  intriguing  against  one  another, 
then,  no  doubt,  the  others  will  come  in. 

Now  I  spoke  at  the  beginning  about  the  possible 
dangers  of  reaction,  but  there  is  a  very  good  side 
also  in  the  reaction.  Part  of  it  is  right.  It  is  a 
reaction  against  superficial  things,  superficial  ways 
of  feeling,  and  perhaps  also  superficial  ways  of  thought. 
We  have  gone  back  in  our  daily  experience  to  deeper 
and  more  primitive  things.  There  has  been  a  deep- 
ening of  the  quality  of  our  ordinary  life.  We  are 
called  upon  to  take  up  a  greater  duty  than  ever  before. 


132    ETHICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  WAR 

We  have  to  face  more  peril,  we  have  to  endure  greater 
suffering;  death  itself  has  come  close  to  us.  It  is 
intimate  in  the  thoughts  of  every  one  of  us,  and  it  has 
taught  us  in  some  way  to  love  one  another.  For  the 
first  time  for  many  centuries  this  "unhappy  but  not 
inglorious  generation,"  as  it  has  been  called,  is  living 
and  moving  daily,  waking  and  sleeping,  in  the  habitual 
presence  of  ultimate  and  tremendous  things.  We  are 
living  now  in  a  great  age. 

A  thing  which  has  struck  me,  and  I  have  spoken 
of  it  elsewhere,  is  the  way  in  which  the  language 
of  romance  and  melodrama  has  now  become  true. 
It  is  becoming  the  language  of  our  normal  life.  The 
old  phrase  about  "dying  for  freedom,"  about  "Death 
being  better  than  dishonour" — phrases  that  we  thought 
were  fitted  for  the  stage  or  for  children's  stories,  are 
now  the  ordinary  truths  on  which  we  live.  A  phrase 
which  happened  to  strike  me  was  recorded  of  a  Canadian 
soldier  who  went  down,  I  think  in  the  Arabic  after 
saving  several  people;  before  he  sank  he  turned  and 
said,  "I  have  served  my  King  and  country  and  this 
is  my  end."  It  was  the  natural  way  of  expressing  the 
plain  fact.  I  read  yesterday  a  letter  from  a  soldier  at 
the  front  about  the  death  of  one  of  his  fellow-soldiers, 
and  the  letter  ended  quite  simply:  "After  all  he  has 
done  what  we  all  want  to  do — die  for  England."  The 
man  who  wrote  it  has  since  then  had  his  wish.  Or  again 
if  one  wants  a  phrase  to  live  by,  which  would  a  few  years 
ago  have  seemed  somewhat  unreal,  or  "high  falutin',"  he 
can  take  those  words  that  are  now  in  everybody's  mind : 
"I  see  now  that  patriotism  is  not  enough,  I  must  die 
without  hatred  or  bitterness  toward  any  one." 


ETHICAL  PROBLEMS  OF  THE  WAR     133 

Romance  and  melodrama  were  a  memory,  broken 
fragments  living  on  of  heroic  ages  in  the  past.  We 
live  no  longer  upon  fragments  and  memories,  we 
have  entered  ourselves  upon  a  heroic  age.  As  for 
me  personally,  there  is  one  thought  that  is  always 
with  me  as  it  is  with  us  all  I  expect — the  thought 
that  other  men  are  dying  for  me,  better  men,  younger, 
with  more  hope  in  their  lives,  many  of  them  men  whom 
I  have  taught  and  loved.  I  hope  you  will  allow  me  to 
say,  and  will  not  be  in  any  way  offended  by  the  thought 
I  want  to  express  to  you.  Some  of  you  will  be  orthodox 
Christians,  and  will  be  familiar  with  that  thought  of 
One  who  loved  you  dying  for  you.  I  would  like  to 
say  that  now  I  seem  to  be  familiar  with  the  feeling  that 
something  innocent,  something  great,  something  that 
loves  me  has  died,  and  is  dying  daily  for  me.  That 
is  the  sort  of  community  "that  we  now  are — a  com- 
munity in  which  one  man  dies  for  his  brother,  and 
underneath  all  our  hatreds,  all  our  little  angers  and 
quarrels  we  are  brothers  who  are  ready  to  seal  our 
brotherhood  with  blood.  It  is  for  us  that  these  men 
are  dying,  for  us  the  women,  the  old  men  and  the 
rejected  men,  and  to  preserve  the  civilization  and  the 
common  life  which  we  are  keeping  alive  and  re-shaping, 
toward  wisdom  or  unwisdom,  toward  unity  or  discord. 
Well,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  let  us  be  worthy  of  these 
men,  let  us  be  ready  each  one  with  our  sacrifice  when 
it  is  asked.  Let  us  try  as  citizens  to  live  a  life  which 
shall  not  be  a  mockery  to  the  faith  these  men  have 
placed  in  us.  Let  us  build  up  an  England  for  which 
these  men  lying  in  their  scattered  graves  over  the  face 
of  the  green  world  would  have  been  proud  to  die. 


VII 

THE  FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 

Interview  Given  by 
The  Rt.  Hon.  ARTHUR  J.  BALFOUR,  M.  P. 

First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty. 


VII 
THE  FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 

THE  phrase  "freedom  of  the  seas"  is,  naturally, 
attractive  to  British  and  American  ears.  For 
the  extension  of  freedom  into  all  departments 
of  life  and  over  the  whole  world  has  been  one  of  the 
chief  aspirations  of  the  English-speaking  peoples,  and 
efforts  toward  that  end  have  formed  no  small  part  of 
their  contribution  to  civilization.  But  "freedom" 
is  a  word  of  many  meanings;  and  we  shall  do  well  to 
consider  in  what  meaning  the  Germans  use  it  when 
they  ask  for  it,  not  (it  may  be  safely  said)  because 
they  love  freedom  but  because  they  hate  Britain. 

About  the  "freedom  of  the  seas,"  in  one  sense,  we 
are  all  agreed.  England  and  Holland  fought  for  it  in 
times  gone  by.  To  their  success  the  United  States 
may  be  said  to  owe  its  very  existence. 

For  if,  three  hundred  years  ago,  the  maritime  claims 
of  Spain  and  "Portugal  had  been  admitted,  whatever 
else  North  America  might  have  been  it  would  not  have 
been  English-speaking.  It  neither  would  have  em- 
ployed the  language,  nor  obeyed  the  laws,  nor  enjoyed 
the  institutions,  which,  in  the  last  analysis,  are  of 
British  origin. 

But  the  "freedom  of  the  seas,"  desired  by  the 
modern  German,  is  a  very  different  thing  from  the 
freedom  for  which  our  forefathers  fought  in  days  of 

137 


138         THE  FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 

old.  How,  indeed,  can  it  be  otherwise?  The  most 
simple  minded  must  feel  suspicious  when  they  find 
that  these  missionaries  of  maritime  freedom  are  the 
very  same  persons  who  preach  and  who  practise  upon 
the  land  the  extremest  doctrines  of  military  absolutism. 

Ever  since  the  genius  of  Bismarck  created  the  Ger- 
man Empire  by  Prussian  rifles,  welding  the  German 
people  into  a  great  unity  by  military  means,  on  a 
military  basis,  German  ambitions  have  been  a  cause  of 
unrest  to  the  entire  world.  Commercial  and  political 
domination,  depending  upon  a  gigantic  army  autocrati- 
cally governed,  has  been  and  is  the  German  ideal. 

If,  then,  Germany  wants  what  she  calls  the  freedom 
of  the  seas,  it  is  solely  as  a  means  whereby  this  ideal 
may  receive  world-wide  extension.  The  power  of 
Napoleon  never  extended  beyond  the  coast  line  of 
Europe.  Further  progress  was  barred  by  the  British 
fleets  and  by  them  alone.  Germany  is  determined  to 
endure  no  such  limitations;  and  if  she  cannot  defeat 
her  enemies  at  sea,  at  least,  she  will  paralyze  their  sea 
power. 

There  is  a  characteristic  simplicity  in  the  methods 
by  which  she  sets  about  attaining  this  object.  She 
poses  as  a  reformer  of  international  law,  though 
international  law  has  never  bound  her  for  an  hour. 
She  objects  to  "economic  pressure"  when  it  is  exercised 
by  a  fleet,  though  she  sets  no  limit  to  the  brutal  com- 
pleteness with  which  economic  pressure  may  be  im- 
posed by  an  army.  She  sighs  over  the  suffering  which 
war  imposes  upon  peaceful  commerce,  though  her 
own  methods  of  dealing  with  peaceful  commerce  would 
have  wrung  the  conscience  of  Captain  Kidd.  She 


THE  FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS          139 

denounces  the  maritime  methods  of  the  Allies,  though 
in  her  efforts  to  defeat  them  she  is  deterred  neither 
by  the  rules  of  war,  the  appeal  of  humanity,  nor  the 
rights  of  neutrals. 

It  must  be  admitted,  therefore,  that  it  is  not  the 
cause  of  peace,  of  progress,  or  of  liberty  which  pre- 
occupies her  when  in  the  name  of  freedom,  she  urges 
fundamental  changes  in  maritime  practice.  Her  mani- 
fest object  is  to  shatter  an  obstacle  which  now  stands 
in  her  way,  as  more  than  a  hundred  years  ago  it  stood 
in  the  way  of  the  masterful  genius  who  was  her  op- 
pressor and  is  her  model. 

Not  along  this  path  are  peace  and  liberty  to  be 
obtained.  To  paralyze  naval  power  and  leave  military 
power  uncontrolled  is  surely  the  worst  injury  which 
international  law  can  inflict  upon  mankind. 

Let  me  confirm  this  truth  by  dwelling  for  a  moment 
on  an  aspect  of  it  which  is,  I  think,  too  often  forgotten. 
It  should  be  observed  that  even  if  the  German  proposal 
were  carried  out  in  its  entirety  it  would  do  nothing  to 
relieve  the  world  from  the  burden  of  armaments. 

Fleets  would  still  be  indispensable.  But  their 
relative  value  would  suffer  change.  They  could  no 
longer  be  used  to  exercise  pressure  upon  an  enemy  ex- 
cept in  conjunction  with  an  army.  The  gainers  by 
the  change  would,  therefore,  be  the  nations  who  pos- 
sessed armies — the  military  monarchies.  Interference 
with  trade  would  be  stopped;  but  oversea  invasion 
would  be  permitted.  The  proposed  change  would, 
therefore,  not  merely  diminish  the  importance  of  sea 
power,  but  it  would  diminish  it  most  in  the  case  of 
non-military  States,  like  America  and  Britain. 


140          THE  FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 

Suppose,  for  example,  that  Germany,  in  her  desire 
to  appropriate  some  Germanized  portions  of  South 
America  came  into  conflict  with  the  United  States 
over  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  The  United  States,  bound 
by  the  doctrine  of  "freedom  of  the  seas,"  could  aim  no 
blow  at  her  enemy  until  she  herself  had  created  a  large 
army  and  become  for  the  time  being  a  military  com- 
munity. Her  sea  power  would  be  useless  or  nearly  so. 
Her  land  power  would  not  exist. 

But  more  than  this  might  happen.  Let  us  suppose 
the  desired  change  had  been  effected.  Let  us  suppose 
that  the  maritime  nations,  accepting  the  new  situation, 
thought  themselves  relieved  from  all  necessity  of  pro- 
tecting their  sea-borne  commerce,  and  arranged  their 
programmes  of  naval  ship-building  accordingly.  For 
some  time  it  would  probably  proceed  on  legal  lines. 
Commerce,  even  hostile  commerce,  would  be  un- 
hampered. But  a  change  might  happen.  Some  un- 
foreseen circumstance  might  make  the  German  General 
Staff  think  it  to  be  to  the  interest  of  its  nation  to  cast 
to  the  winds  the  "freedom  of  the  seas"  and,  in  defiance 
of  the  new  law,  to  destroy  the  trade  of  its  enemies. 

Could  anybody  suggest  after  our  experience  in  this 
war,  after  reading  German  histories  and  German  theories 
of  politics,  that  Germany  would  be  prevented  from 
taking  such  a  step  by  the  mere  fact  that  it  was  a 
breach  of  international  treaties  to  which  she  was  a 
party?  She  would  never  hesitate — and  the  only  re- 
sult of  the  cession  by  the  specific  Powers  of  their 
maritime  rights  would  be  that  the  military  Powers 
would  seize  the  weapon  for  their  own  purpose  and  turn 
it  against  those  who  had  too  hastily  abandoned  it. 


THE  FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS          141 

Thus  we  are  forced  to  the  sorrowful  recognition  of 
the  weakness  of  international  law  so  long  as  it  is  un- 
supported by  international  authority. 

While  this  state  of  things  is  permitted  to  endure, 
drastic  changes  in  international  law  well  may  do  more 
harm  than  good;  for  if  the  new  rules  should  involve 
serious  limitations  of  belligerent  Powers,  they  would  be 
broken  as  soon  as  it  suited  the  interests  of  the  ag- 
gressor; and  his  victim  would  be  helpless.  Nothing 
could  be  more  disastrous.  It  is  bad  that  law  should 
be  defied.  It  is  far  worse  that  it  should  injure  the  well 
disposed.  Yet  this  is  what  would  inevitably  happen, 
since  law  unsupported  by  authority  will  hamper  every- 
body but  the  criminal. 

Here  we  come  face  to  face  with  the  great  problem 
which  lies  behind  all  the  changing  aspects  of  this 
tremendous  war.  When  it  is  brought  to  an  end,  how 
is  civilized  mankind  so  to  reorganize  itself  that  similar 
catastrophes  shall  not  be  permitted  to  recur? 

The  problem  is  insistent,  though  its  full  solution 
may  be  beyond  our  powers  at  this  stage  of  our  de- 
velopment. 

But,  surely,  even  now,  it  is  fairly  clear  that  if  sub- 
stantial progress  is  to  be  made  toward  securing  the 
peace  of  the  world  and  a  free  development  of  its  con- 
stituent nations,  the  United  States  of  America  and  the 
British  Empire  should  explicitly  recognize,  what  all 
instinctively  know,  that  on  these  great  subjects  they 
share  a  common  ideal. 

I  am  well  aware  that  in  even  hinting  at  the  possi- 
bility of  cooperation  between  these  two  countries  I 
am  treading  on  delicate  ground.  The  fact  that  Amer- 


142          THE  FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS 

ican  independence  was  wrested  by  force  from  Great 
Britain  colours  the  whole  view  Which  some  Americans 
take  of  the  "natural"  relations  between  the  two  com- 
munities. Others  are  impatient  of  anything  which 
they  regard  as  a  sentimental  appeal  to  community  of 
race,  holding  that  in  respect  of  important  sections  of 
the  American  people  this  community  of  race  does  not, 
in  fact,  exist.  Others  again  think  that  any  argument 
based  on  a  similarity  of  laws  and  institutions  belittles 
the  greatness  of  America's  contribution  to  the  political 
development  of  the  modern  world. 

Rightly  understood,  however,  what  I  have  to  say  is 
quite  independent  of  individual  views  on  any  of  these 
subjects.  It  is  based  on  the  unquestioned  fact  that  the 
growth  of  British  laws,  British  forms  of  government, 
British  literature  and  modes  of  thought  was  the  slow 
work  of  centuries;  that  among  the  co-heirs  of  these 
age-long  labours  were  the  great  men  who  founded 
the  United  States;  and  that  the  two  branches  of  the 
English-speaking  peoples,  after  the  political  separation, 
developed  along  parallel  lines.  So  it  has  come  about 
that  whether  they  be  friendly  or  quarrelsome,  whether 
they  rejoice  in  their  agreements  or  cultivate  their  dif- 
ferences, they  can  no  more  get  rid  of  a  certain  fun- 
damental similarity  of  outlook  than  children  born  of 
the  same  parents  and  brought  up  in  the  same  home. 
Whether,  therefore,  you  study  political  thought  in 
Great  Britain  or  America,  in  Canada  or  in  Australia, 
you  will  find  it  presents  the  sharpest  and  most  irrec- 
oncilable contrast  to  political  thought  in  the  Prus- 
sian Kingdom,  or  in  that  German  Empire  into  which, 
with  no  modification  of  aims  or  spirit,  the  Prussian 


THE  FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS          143 

Kingdom  has  developed.  Holding,  as  I  do,  that  this 
war  is  essentially  a  struggle  between  these  two  ideals 
of  ancient  growth,  I  cannot  doubt  that  in  the  result  of 
that  struggle  America  is  no  less  concerned  than  the 
British  Empire. 

Now,  if  this  statement,  which  represents  the  most 
unchanging  element  in  my  political  creed,  has  in  it  any 
element  of  truth,  how  does  it  bear  upon  the  narrower 
issues  upon  which  I  dwelt  in  the  earlier  portions  of  this 
interview?  In  other  words,  what  are  the  practical  con- 
clusions to  be  drawn  from  it? 

My  own  conclusions  are  these: — If  in  our  time,  any 
substantial  effort  is  to  be  made  toward  ensuring  the 
permanent  triumph  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  ideal,  the  great 
communities  which  accept  it  must  work  together.  And 
in  working  together  they  must  bear  in  mind  that  law 
is  not  enough.  Behind  law  there  must  be  power. 
It  is  good  that  arbitration  should  be  encouraged.  It 
is  good  that  the  accepted  practices  of  warfare  should 
become  ever  more  humane.  It  is  good  that  before 
peace  is  broken  the  would-be  belligerents  should  be 
compelled  to  discuss  their  differences  in  some  congress 
of  the  nations.  It  is  good  that  the  security  of  the 
smaller  States  should  be  fenced  round  with  peculiar 
care.  But  all  the  precautions  are  mere  scraps  of  paper 
unless  they  can  be  enforced.  We  delude  ourselves  if 
we  think  we  are  doing  God  service  merely  by  passing 
good  resolutions.  What  is  needed  now,  and  will  be 
needed  so  long  as  militarism  is  unconquered,  is  the 
machinery  for  enforcing  them;  and  the  contrivance  of 
such  a  machinery  will  tax  to  its  utmost  the  states- 
manship of  the  world. 


144          THE  FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS, 

I  have  no  contribution  to  make  to  the  solution  of  the 
problem.  Yet  this  much  seems  clear.  If  there  is  to 
be  any  effective  sanction  behind  the  desire  of  the  English- 
speaking  peoples  to  preserve  the  world's  peace  and 
the  free  development  of  the  nations,  that  sanction 
must  consist  largely  in  the  potential  use  of  sea  power. 
For  two  generations  and  more  after  the  last  great  war 
Britain  was  without  a  rival  on  the  sea.  During  this 
period  Belgium  became  a  State,  Greece  secured  her 
independence,  the  unity  of  Italy  was  achieved,  the 
South  American  republics  were  established,  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  came  into  being. 

To  me  it  seems  that  the  lesson  to  be  drawn  from 
history  by  those  who  love  peace,  freedom,  and  security, 
is  not  that  Britain  and  America  should  be  deprived,  or 
should  deprive  themselves  of  the  maritime  powers  they 
now  possess,  but  that,  if  possible,  those  powers  should 
be  organized  in  the  interests  of  an  ideal  common  to 
the  two  States,  an  ideal  upon  whose  progressive  realiza- 
tion the  happiness  and  peace  of  the  world  must  largely 
depend. 


VIII 
ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE 

By  PAUL  ALBERT  HELMER 


VIII 
ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE 

TRANSLATOR'S  NOTE 

MAITRE  PAUL  ALBERT  HELMER  was  born  in  Alsace  in 
1874.  He  studied  at  the  High  School  of  Schlestadt, 
and  afterward  at  the  University  of  Strasburg,  and 
graduated  Doctor  of  Laws  in  1895,  and  Doctor  of 
Political  Science  in  1896. 

In  1900-1901  he  was  Secretary  to  the  Franco- 
Bulgarian  Arbitration  Commission  relating  to  the 
Isker  railway. 

He  was  subsequently  a  magistrate  at  Colmar,  and 
afterward,  from  1902,  an  advocate  in  that  town. 
He  won  distinction  more  especially  as  an  advocate 
in  political  lawsuits  in  the  numerous  and  very  often 
notorious  lawsuits  which  show  what  life  was  for  the 
natives  of  Alsace-Lorraine  under  the  harassing,  ma- 
lignant, and  pitiless  rule  of  the  Germans.  His  es- 
sential qualities  as  a  political  advocate  are  the  reliability 
of  his  documentation  and  the  close  reasoning  of  his 
arguments. 

He  was  counsel  for  the  Souvenir  Alsacien-Lorrain, 
a  society  founded  with  the  object  of  honouring  the 
tombs  and  perpetuating  the  memory  of  the  French 
soldiers  who  fell  in  1870  in  Alsace-Lorraine.  The 
Society  was  dissolved,  and  an  action  was  brought 

147 


148       ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE 

against  its  members.  Maitre  Helmer  defended  them 
with  admirable  vigour. 

He  was  counsel  in  the  so-called  Proces  des  Fame- 
liques  for  the  Nouvelliste  d9  Alsace-Lorraine  (the  Abbe 
Wetterle's  newspaper),  which  had  spoken  of  the  im- 
migrant officials  as  descendants  of  "the  ravenous 
band  which  fell  upon  Alsace-Lorraine  after  1870"! 
It  was  on  account  of  the  use  of  this  expression,  "les 
fameliques,"  that  the  Public  Prosecutor  instituted  the 
proceedings. 

He  appeared  against  the  Under-Secretary  of  State 
(Mandel),  the  bitter  enemy  of  the  Alsatians,  in  an- 
other Press  action,  when,  to  the  great  scandal  of  all 
the  immigrants,  he  denounced  Prince  Joachim  of 
Prussia  as  the  author  of  the  Pan-German  threats  against 
Alsace-Lorraine.  (Maitre  Helmer,  be  it  said,  is  the 
first  authority  in  Alsace  and  in  France  on  the  history 
of  pan-Germanism,  to  the  progress,  influence,  and 
menace  of  which  he  has  constantly  called  attention.) 

He  was  counsel  for  the  Abbe  Wetterle  against  the 
German  General  Keim,  President  of  the  Army  League 
and  responsible  for  the  German  Army  Act  of  1913. 
The  General  had  offended  gravely  against  the  natives 
of  Alsace-Lorraine;  Maitre  Helmer  succeeded  in  pro- 
curing his  conviction. 

He  was  counsel  for  Hansi,  the  caricaturist,  in  all 
his  lawsuits.  He  was,  in  fact,  his  lawyer.  It  was 
he  who  defended  him  in  the  Histoire  d' Alsace  case,  in 
the  Mon  Village  case,  and  others. 

The  Mon  Village  case  was  first  heard  at  Colmar. 
Magnificent  speeches  were  made  by  Maitre  Preiss 
and  Maitre  Helmer.  But  Hansi  was  condemned 


ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE        149 

beforehand.  The  tribunal  sent  him  for  trial  before 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Leipzig  on  a  charge  of  high 
treason,  and  he  was  immediately  arrested.  It  was 
a  tragic  day  in  the  political  history  of  these  last  years 
in  Alsace-Lorraine.  A  new  era  of  severities  and  per- 
secutions began  under  the  auspices  of  the  new  Statt- 
halter.  The  authorities  were  determined  to  suppress 
the  French  sympathies  of  the  Alsatians  by  every 
possible  means. 

The  trial  for  high  treason  took  place  at  the  Court 
of  Leipzig  a  few  weeks  later — just  a  year  ago.  Maltre 
Helmer  again  defended  Hansi,  regardless  of  the  perils 
to  which  he  thus  exposed  himself.  Hansi  was  sen- 
tenced to  eighteen  months'  imprisonment. 

At  the  moment  when  the  war  broke  out,  the  au- 
thorities were  collecting  evidence  and  initiating  pro- 
ceedings against  Maitre  Helmer,  with  a  view  to  pros- 
ecuting him  in  his  turn  for  high  treason.  The  Abbe 
Wetterle  was  also  to  be  prosecuted. 

Fortunately  Maitre  Helmer  succeeded  in  getting 
away  into  France  two  days  before  the  mobilization. 
He  was  able  to  render  signal  service  in  Alsace  when 
it  was  re-occupied  by  the  French  troops  by  means  of 
the  political  information  he  gave  to  the  Command. 

The  German  authorities  seized  his  possessions  at 
Colmar  and  decreed  that  whoever  gave  him  refuge 
would  incur  capital  punishment. 

Maitre  Helmer  has  worked  indefatigably  ever  since 
in  the  cause  of  French  Alsace,  contributing  articles 
to  the  Temps,  La  France  de  Demain,  Le  Correspondent, 
La  Revue  politique  et  parlementaire,  Les  Annales,  and 
many  other  papers  and  reviews,  and  giving  lectures  in- 


150       ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE 

numerable  in  Paris,  Bordeaux  ("Culture  et  Kultur"), 
and  throughout  France. 

When  the  war  is  over,  Maltre  Helmer  will  un- 
doubtedly play  a  prominent  part,  together  with 
Wetterle,  Preiss,  Langel,  and  others,  in  the  public 
life  of  an  Alsace  restored  to  France. 

We  may  add  that  in  1911,  Maitre  Helmer  was 
responsible  for  the  Programme  of  the  National  Union 
of  Alsace-Lorraine,  setting  forth  the  claims  of  the 
annexed  population,  both  national  and  political. 

He  has  published  Ephemerides  Alsaciennes  (a  faith- 
ful record  of  the  events  of  the  German  occupation 
during  the  war  of  1870,  and  of  the  atrocities  com- 
mitted by  the  Germans  at  this  period),  and  founded 
the  review,  Nouvelles  de  France. 


f  *^HE  question  of  Alsace-Lorraine  has  been  at 
the  root  of  the  entire  foreign  policy  of  France 

JL  for  the  last  forty-four  years.  It  was  this 
question  which  created  and  kept  alive  the  antago- 
nism between  the  Republic  and  the  German  Empire. 
But  for  it,  the  two  great  neighbours  might  perhaps 
have  come  to  terms.  The  defeat  of  the  Imperial  armies 
in  1870  would  have  been  but  a  wound  to  self-esteem 
which  the  change  of  political  regime  would  have  quickly 
healed.  The  loss  of  five  thousand  million  francs,  and 
even  of  more  than  this,  would  soon  have  been  com- 
pensated by  renewed  material  progress. 

But  when  Bismarck  forced  the  nation  to  give  up 
a  population  eager  to  remain  French,  he  laid  upon 
her  the  obligation  of  a  war  to  the  knife,  such  as  the 
desire  for  revenge  must  entail.  When  he  compelled 


ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE       151 

vanquished  France  to  cede  a  million  and  a  half  of 
her  children  as  the  price  of  peace,  he  created  a  debt 
of  honour  for  the  mother  country  which  a  chivalrous 
people  would  have  held  it  ignominious  to  forget. 

It  is  true  that  France  did  not  provoke  the  present 
war.  But  she  foresaw  and  expected  it.  The  enemy 
who  had  scorned  the  rights  of  nationalities  in  1871, 
who  had  done  violence  to  the  formally  and  solemnly 
expressed  will  of  the  natives  of  Alsace  and  Lorraine,  was 
incapable  of  stopping  short  in  his  career  of  crime.  By 
his  mad  pride  and  arrogance,  he  was  destined  himself  to 
bring  about  the  inevitable  day  of  imminent  justice. 

And  Alsace,  too,  has  been  waiting  patiently  for  this 
day  for  forty-four  years.  It  was  her  consolation 
in  present  suffering  to  preserve  piously  as  a  sacred 
trust  the  memory  of  her  French  past,  recollections 
of  the  period  when,  in  communion  with  France,  she 
had  successively  tasted  the  sweetness  of  life,  liberty, 
glory,  and  fruitful  civic  prosperity. 

It  seems  there  were  persons  before  the  war  who 
believed  that  Alsace  was  Germanized  and  contented 
with  her  lot.  This  is  surprising  to  us.  It  was  holding 
our  sense  of  fidelity  and  our  code  of  honour  very  cheap. 
We  have  only  to  recall  the  past  of  Alsace  to  make  it 
evident  that  our  little  nation  could  not  in  little  more 
than  a  generation  renounce  and  forget  the  sentiments 
of  affection  and  gratitude  which  the  slow  action  of 
several  centuries  had  inculcated  in  her  race. 

THE  MIDDLE  AGES  AND  THE  ANCIENT  REGIME 

Alsace  formed  a  part  of  those  central  provinces 
which,  after  the  division  of  the  Empire  of  Charle- 


152       ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE 

magne,  were  to  have  constituted  an  independent 
country,  Lotharingia.  In  reality,  throughout  the  course 
of  history  they  were  the  object  of  continual  struggles 
between  the  two  nations  they  were  intended  to  separate. 
Before  belonging  to  France  in  modern  times,  Alsace 
had  long  been  part  of  the  ancient  Empire  of  Germany. 
It  is  on  this  fact  that  the  Germans  base  their  claim  to 
the  province  as  German  territory  which  ought  to  come 
back  to  them. 

This  affirmation  is  too  simple  to  apply  to  the  com- 
plex situation  of  a  frontier  country.  As  a  fact,  Alsace, 
even  in  the  Middle  Ages,  though  it  spoke  a  German 
dialect,  was  in  the  orbit  of  French  culture.  The 
Gothic  artists  who  built  Strasburg  Cathedral  came 
from  the  He  de  France  or  had  learnt  their  art  there. 
The  Alsatian  authors  who  figure  in  German  literature, 
such  as  Gottfried,  of  Strasburg,  and  Fischart,  imitated 
French  authors,  or  initiated  their  German  readers  into 
the  courtly  life  of  France.  Alsatian  scholars  studied 
in  Paris,  and  at  all  periods  many  persons  conversant 
with  the  French  tongue  were  to  be  found  in  the  cul- 
tivated classes. 

Alsace,  thus  attracted  by  the  French  genius,  was 
bound  to  Germany  only  by  the  political  constitution 
of  the  ancient  Empire.  Now  this  constitution  en- 
sured her  all  but  complete  independence  in  her  dif- 
ferent localities,  without  imposing  any  appreciable 
burdens  upon  her.  But  the  Empire,  though,  on  the 
one  hand,  it  exacted  little,  on  the  other  was  not  very 
lavish  in  its  proffered  benefits.  It  did  not  even 
guarantee  public  safety,  and,  in  those  days  of  in- 
cessant warfare,  Alsace  greatly  needed  protection. 


ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE        153 

Her  rich  plains  attracted  the  troops  of  every  chieftain. 
To  say  nothing  of  her  innumerable  internecine  quarrels, 
Alsace,  from  the  Hundred  Years'  War  onward,  had 
seen  in  her  country  the  Armagnacs,  the  English,  and 
the  Burgundians;  after  the  Reformation  she  saw  there 
the  Austrians,  the  Hungarians,  the  Spaniards,  and  the 
Swedes,  who  successively  ravaged  and  ruined  the 
country. 

In  the  seventeenth  century,  the  Thirty  Years'  War 
proved  more  conclusively  than  anything  the  impo- 
tence of  the  German  Empire,  and  caused  Alsace  to  seek 
aid  and  protection  from  a  more  powerful  State.  Such 
was  the  object  of  the  conventions  entered  into  by 
several  Alsatian  towns  with  Richelieu,  the  culmina- 
tion of  which  was  the  reunion  of  Alsace  with  France 
by  the  Treaty  of  Westphalia  in  1648.  Louis  XIII, 
and  afterward  Louis  XIV,  took  Alsace  under  their 
protection  at  her  own  request. 

France  succeeded  in  making  herself  beloved  in  the 
province.  Anxious  to  preserve  the  sympathies  she 
had  inspired,  she  respected  the  immunities  of  the 
communes,  and  the  traditions  and  customs  of  the 
inhabitants.  Her  policy  was  inspired  by  a  generosity 
and  breadth  of  view  which  persuaded  them  that 
their  reunion  with  France  had  wrought  no  change 
in  their  lives. 

French  rule  manifested  itself  only  in  beneficent 
effects.  Never  had  Alsace  been  so  tranquil,  so  securely 
defended  against  foreign  armies.  Trade  and  industry 
developed,  thanks  to  an  assured  peace,  and  the  skilful 
and  benignant  measures  of  the  governors  of  the  prov- 
ince, for  France  made  it  a  point  of  honour  to  send  her 


154       ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE 

best  administrators  to  the  frontier  territory.  She 
also  instituted  the  Sovereign  Council  of  Alsace  in  the 
province,  a  single  legal  court  for  the  whole  territory, 
which  dispensed  justice  both  swiftly  and  impartially. 

For  a  century  and  a  half,  France  had  succeeded 
in  making  the  Alsatians  appreciate  the  benefits  of 
a  firmly -organized  State,  inspired  by  broad  and  benev- 
olent views.  Their  attachment  to  France  was  solidly 
established  when  the  Great  Revolution  broke  out. 

THE   REVOLUTION   AND    THE    EMPIRE 

The  ancien  regime,  as  I  have  said,  had  scrupu- 
lously respected  the  institutions  created  in  Alsace 
by  the  feudal  system.  The  country  had  continued 
to  be  divided  into  an  infinite  number  of  little  republics, 
principalities,  and  domains,  the  laws  and  territories 
of  which  were  interwoven  in  the  most  complex  fashion. 
But  all  these  constitutions  had  outlived  themselves. 
A  local  life  no  longer  satisfied  the  Alsatians;  in  1789 
they  sacrificed  it  gladly  to  take  their  share  in  the  life 
of  the  nation.  The  complete  fusion  of  the  Alsatian 
people  with  the  French  people  was  the  first  effect  of 
the  Revolution.  The  province  had  disappeared;  only 
Frenchmen  remained. 

And  the  Alsatians  at  once  found  their  place  in  French 
political  life.  The  parliamentary  assemblies  gave  in- 
dividual talent  opportunities  for  attracting  public 
attention.  When  the  Republic  adopted  the  directorial 
constitution,  an  Alsatian  (Rewbel),  a  barrister  of 
Colmar,  became  a  member  of  the  Directorate.  The 
part  he  played  was  a  prominent  one;  as  Minister  for 
Foreign  Affairs,  he  directed  the  external  policy  of 


ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE        155 

France  at  the  moment  when,  by  the  Treaty  of  Basle, 
Prussia  recognized  the  cession  of  the  left  bank  of  the 
Rhine.  Thus  an  Alsatian  secured  for  France  what 
she  had  desired  for  centuries — her  natural  frontiers. 

The  wars  of  the  Revolution  gave  the  people  of 
Alsace  opportunities  of  proving  their  French  pa- 
triotism even  greater  than  those  offered  by  its  political 
life.  Many  Alsatians  won  distinction  in  the  Re- 
publican armies,  from  Kellermann,  the  victor  of 
Valmy,  to  Kleber,  the  rival  of  Napoleon  in  Egypt. 
It  was  at  this  period  that  the  military  qualities  of  the 
Alsatian  race  manifested  themselves  most  gloriously. 
The  careers  inaugurated  by  the  Revolution  were 
crowned  by  the  Empire.  Alsace  contributed  more 
men  and  generals  to  the  Napoleonic  epic  than  any 
other  French  province.  Lefebvre,  Rapp,  Sirhanun, 
Berckheim,  Hengel,  and  many  others,  down  to  the 
obscure  defenders  of  Huningue,  proved  by  their  blood 
and  their  glorious  exploits  the  depth  of  their  attach- 
ment to  their  French  fatherland. 

A  monument  to  this  valiant  Alsatian  patriotism, 
this  love  for  the  nation,  still  survives.  You  all  know 
it,  but  perhaps  you  do  not  know  its  Alsatian  origin. 
When  the  first  Revolutionary  war  broke  out  the 
Mayor  of  Strasburg  asked  Rouget  de  Lisle  to  compose 
a  song  for  the  troops  who  were  marching  to  meet  the 
enemy.  This  officer,  in  a  moment  of  genius,  con- 
trived to  express  in  his  "War  Song  of  the  Army  of  the 
Rhine"  all  that  was  firing  the  martial  population  of 
Strasburg,  and  urging  it  on  to  conflict.  The  Alsatian 
hymn,  adopted  by  all  France,  has  become  inseparable 
from  the  tricolour.  For  the  last  one  hundred  and 


156       ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE 

twenty  years,  on  innumerable  battlefields,  every  attack 
by  French  soldiers  has  been  made  to  the  strains  of 
the  "War  Song  of  the  Army  of  the  Rhine,"  the  Mar- 
seillaise. 

THE    PROTEST 

Thus,  when  in  1870  Germany  coveted  Alsace, 
the  latter  had  long  proved  herself  as  thoroughly 
French  as  any  other  province  of  France.  She  did 
her  duty  during  the  mournful  days  of  the  terrible 
year,  as  in  past  days  of  glory. 

But  in  face  of  the  German  demands,  our  Deputies 
thought  it  their  duty  to  make  a  solemn  affirmation 
of  their  sentiments  directly  the  National  Assembly 
convoked  to  conclude  peace  met  at  Bordeaux.  On 
February  17,  1871,  they  laid  on  the  table  a  declara- 
tion in  the  following  terms : 

Alsace  and  Lorraine  are  opposed  to  alienation.  These  two 
provinces,  associated  with  France  for  more  than  two  centuries 
in  good  and  in  evil  fortune,  and  constantly  exposed  to  hostile 
attack,  have  consistently  sacrificed  themselves  in  the  cause  of 
national  greatness;  they  have  sealed  with  their  blood  the  indis- 
soluble compact  that  binds  them  to  French  unity.  Under  the 
present  menace  of  foreign  pretensions,  they  affirm  their  unshak- 
able fidelity  in  the  face  of  all  obstacles  and  dangers,  even  under 
the  yoke  of  the  invader.  With  one  accord  citizens  who  have 
remained  in  their  homes  and  soldiers  who  have  hastened  to  join 
the  colours  proclaim  by  their  votes  or  by  their  action  in  the  field 
to  Germany  and  to  the  world  the  unalterable  determination  of 
Alsace  to  remain  French. 

In  spite  of  the  formally  declared  wishes  of  the 
Alsatians  and  Lorrainers,  the  National  Assembly 


ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE        157 

ratified  the  treaty  of  peace  of  March  1,  1871.  Then 
the  Alsatians,  before  leaving  the  Chamber,  read  out 
the  famous  Protest  of  Bordeaux: 


We,  who  in  defiance  of  all  justice  have  been  given  over  by  an 
odious  abuse  of  power  to  foreign  domination,  have  a  last  duty  to 
perform.  We  declare  a  compact  which  disposes  of  us  without 
our  consent  nul  and  void.  It  will  ever  remain  open  to  each  and 
all  of  us  to  claim  our  rights  in  such  manner  and  in  such  measure 
as  conscience  shall  dictate.  .  .  .  Our  brothers  of  Alsace  and 
Lorraine,  now  cut  off  from  the  common  family,  will  preserve  their 
filial  affection  for  the  France  now  absent  from  their  homes  until 
the  day  when  she  returns  to  take  her  place  there  again. 

THE   ANNEXATION 

On  March  2,  1871,  populations  which  had  been 
French  for  centuries,  and  whose  French  patriotism 
had  grown  up  in  the  course  of  a  history  the  main 
current  of  which  I  have  indicated  to  you  in  a  few 
words,  were  suddenly  called  upon  to  become  German. 
Germany  demanded  this  change  with  such  urgency 
that  she  immediately  exacted  military  service  in  the 
Prussian  army  from  men  whose  fathers  and  brothers 
had  scarcely  laid  down  their  French  arms.  She 
hoped  to  obtain  in  a  day  what  France  had  taken 
centuries  to  produce  by  a  skilful  and  generous 
policy. 

The  Germans  had  not  even  a  conception  of  the 
difficulties  inherent  in  the  task  they  had  undertaken. 
They  had  made  up  their  minds  to  ignore  the  senti- 
ments of  Alsace  in  spite  of  the  violence  with  which 
they  had  been  manifested  during  the  war  and  at 
Bordeaux.  They  persisted  in  considering  the  attach- 


158       ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE 

ment  to  the  French  motherland  as  a  mere  veneer  easy 
to  remove,  a  factor  with  which  it  was  unnecessary  to 
reckon. 

Their  main  argument  was  based  on  language. 
It  is  true  that  the  lower  classes  in  Alsace  speak  a 
dialect  of  Germanic  origin.  But  this  dialect  differs 
so  much  from  written  German  that  when  the  Alsa- 
tian speaks  the  latter,  he  is  distinctly  sensible  of 
speaking  a  foreign  tongue.  In  any  case,  the  use  of 
the  dialect  has  not  created  any  elective  affinity  with 
the  German  nation.  Accordingly  the  lower  orders 
were  not  only  wounded  in  their  feelings,  but  con- 
scious of  material  injury  when  Germany  forbade  the 
teaching  of  French  in  the  primary  schools. 

Germany  looked  for  the  ripening  of  fruit  she  did 
not  know  how  to  cultivate.  On  two  occasions  certain 
Germans  essayed  a  policy  of  conciliation,  and  on  each 
occasion  the  outcome  was  a  period  of  violent  conflict 
and  of  rigorous  repression. 

Those  who  sincerely  desired  the  pacification  of 
the  province — Manteuffel  from  1879  to  1885,  Koeller 
after  1901 — ran  counter  to  the  general  feeling  of 
their  compatriots.  The  majority  of  Germans  believe 
only  yi  the  exercise  of  force,  and  will  accept  nothing 
short  of  servile  submission.  Incapable  of  adapting 
themselves  to  the  mentality  of  others,  Germans  can 
neither  respect  honourable  sentiments,  nor  gain  the 
sympathy  or  even  the  esteem  of  their  adversaries.  It 
is  owing  to  this  psychological  disability  that  all  their 
attempts  at  Germanization  have  failed,  and  that  they 
have  succeeded  not  only  in  keeping  alive  the  attach- 
ment of  Alsace  to  France  but  in  making  the  hostility 


ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE       159 

of  Alsace  to  Germany  more  violent  than  ever  after 
forty-four  years  of  German  rule. 

Before  giving  a  sketch  of  the  political  struggles 
that  have  taken  place  in  Alsace-Lorraine  and  the 
ideas  which  have  successively  governed  the  various 
persons  directing  German  policy  in  our  country,  I 
shall  discharge  a  debt  of  gratitude  by  telling  you 
that  when  the  Germans  proscribed  the  use  of  the 
French  language  among  us,  or  prevented  Alsatians 
from  holding  public  office,  we  had  one  argument 
to  which  our  adversaries  were  never  able  to  find  an 
answer.  We  used  to  say  to  the  Germans  that  a 
great  nation,  conscious  of  its  national  greatness  and 
power,  could  afford  to  be  generous,  and  to  leave  to 
those  it  had  brought  into  its  fold  their  language, 
their  customs  and  their  legitimate  influence;  we 
quoted  in  illustration  the  manner  in  which  Great 
Britain  had  treated  Canada  and  the  South  African 
Republics.  But  the  Germans  were  incapable  of  under- 
standing generosity. 

THE   MANTEUFFEL  REGIME 

I  will  not  dwell  upon  the  early  years  during  which 
German  rule  was  established  with  all  the  harshness 
of  Bismarckian  policy.  The  whole  country  was  thrown 
into  confusion.  Those  who  would  not  endure  German 
domination  emigrated.  Their  places  were  taken  by 
a  colony  of  Germans  whom  we  call  immigrants,  and 
look  upon  as  foreigners  to  this  day. 

When,  after  the  first  settlement  of  the  country, 
the  constitution  of  1879  enabled  the  Government  of 
Alsace-Lorraine  to  pursue  a  clearly  defined  policy, 


160       ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE 

the  first  Statthalter,  Baron  von  Manteuffel,  made  it 
his  object  to  win  over  the  Alsatians  to  Germany  by 
gentle  methods.  An  old  soldier,  formerly  Governor 
of  the  French  departments  until  the  payment  of 
the  war  indemnity,  he  had  a  chivalrous  disposition; 
he  dared  to  admit  that  Alsace  had  once  been  French. 
Given  this  fact,  he  was  willing  to  believe  that  it  was 
not  possible  to  change  one's  nationality  in  a  day  by  a 
stroke  of  the  pen  on  a  treaty  of  peace.  "I  do  not  yet 
ask  for  your  sympathy,"  he  said  one  day,  in  one  of 
those  programme-speeches  he  was  fond  of  making, 
"but  I  advise  you  to  look  upon  the  union  of  Alsace- 
Lorraine  to  the  German  Empire  as  definitive." 

Thus  not  only  did  he  not  exact  an  affection  which 
cannot  be  forced,  but  even  as  a  question  of  law,  he 
did  not  demand  a  formal  recognition  of  the  Treaty  of 
Frankfort.  He  was  content  with  advice  couched  in 
terms  as  far  from  arbitrary  as  possible.  He  respected 
the  feelings  and  the  dignity  of  those  he  governed. 

In  spite  of  the  few  demands  he  made  upon  the 
vanquished,  he  sought  every  occasion  of  coming 
into  contact  with  them  and  doing  them  service.  He 
was  lavish  with  advice  to  those  who  came  to  ask  for 
it,  he  listened  to  the  complaints  of  all  malcontents, 
and  placed  himself  at  the  disposal  of  the  population. 
Though  he  had  declared  that  he  did  not  ask  for  sym- 
pathy, he  evidently  sought  to  win  it  by  his  affability. 

Baron  von  Manteuffel  was  a  truly  popular  person, 
respected  and  liked  even,  and  indeed  more  especially, 
by  the  adversaries  of  the  nation  he  represented. 

Yet  his  work  failed. 

The  first  Statthalter's  successes  were  purely  per- 


ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE       161 

sonal.  His  loyal  and  generous  attitude  was  incom- 
prehensible to  his  compatriots.  Baron  von  Man- 
teuffel's  manner  of  approaching  the  Alsace-Lorraine 
problem,  and  the  principles  which  inspired  him  in 
his  efforts  to  win  popularity,  were  contrary  to  the 
spirit  of  the  German  nation.  Germany,  which  had 
tardily  achieved  unhoped-for  power,  knew  nothing 
of  chivalrous  traditions,  nor  of  respect  for  the  per- 
sonality, the  rights,  and  the  interests  of  others.  The 
tact  and  delicacy  of  Manteuffel,  the  nobility  of  heart 
which  made  him  defer  to  the  sentiments  of  the  van- 
quished, were  foreign  to  the  great  majority  of  his 
people. 

The  Statthalter  of  Alsace-Lorraine  was  accordingly 
repudiated  by  his  German  compatriots.  He  was 
accused  of  negotiating  with  the  enemy,  and  of  favour- 
ing native  notabilities  to  the  prejudice  of  the  German 
immigrant  officials  in  Alsace-Lorraine.  On  the  one 
hand  the  trans-Rhenish  press  and  the  Government 
of  Berlin  demanded  violent  measures  flagrantly  op- 
posed to  his  moderate  and  tolerant  ideas,  while  on  the 
other  his  own  officials  rebelled  and  were  in  open  con- 
flict with  him. 

Before  even  enquiring  what  effects  the  policy  of 
conciliation  and  pacification  inaugurated  by  the  first 
Statthalter  might  have  had  upon  the  national  senti- 
ment of  the  Alsatians  and  Lorrainers,  it  must  be 
insisted  that  Baron  von  Manteuffel  stood  alone,  his 
policy  was  reprobated  by  his  own  compatriots,  and 
his  popularity  in  Alsace  was  of  no  advantage  to  the 
German  Government. 

In    any    case.    Baron    von    Man teuff el's    policy,    if 


162       ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE 

not  premature,  could  not  have  had  any  general  and 
definitive  effect  until  it  had  been  steadily  pursued 
for  a  considerable  length  of  time. 

The  horrors  of  the  war  of  1870,  the  bombardment 
of  Strasburg  and  the  atrocities  of  Val-de-Ville  were 
still  fresh  in  the  memory  of  the  Alsatians.  They 
had  remained  French  in  feeling.  Before  aspiring 
to  be  loved,  the  conquerors  should  have  won  forgive- 
ness, and  before  even  thinking  of  a  reconciliation, 
they  should  have  allowed  time  to  soften  facts  by  the 
insensible  approach  of  forge tfulness.  The  Germans 
could  not  understand  what  the  situation  required 
of  them.  It  was  the  business  of  the  German  nation 
to  make  itself  esteemed  and  respected,  and  of  the 
Empire  to  make  itself  acceptable  by  the  material 
advantages  it  was  in  its  power  to  bestow.  But  neither 
the  people  beyond  the  Rhine  nor  the  Imperial  Govern- 
ment faced  the  problem  in  the  spirit  of  Manteuffel, 
whose  sudden  death  cut  short  his  work. 

It  was  not  likely  that  a  smile  from  the  Emperor's 
lieutenant  would  suffice  to  change  the  national  senti- 
ment of  the  Alsatians.  In  private,  as  in  public  life, 
they  preserved  an  attitude  consistent  with  their 
past. 

When  the  Bishop  of  Metz,  Monseigneur  Dupont 
des  Loges,  was  awarded  the  Prussian  Order  of  the 
Crown,  he  expressed  his  regret  to  the  Statthalter, 
and  published  his  letter.  The  Reichstag  elections 
in  Alsace  were  persistently  hostile  to  Germany,  and 
provoked  measures  of  repression,  ordered  by  the 
Berlin  Government. 

Not  long  after  the  death  of  the  first  Statthalter, 


ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE        163 

in  1887,  it  was  thought  that  war  would  shortly  break 
out.  The  Boulangist  movement,  and  the  Schnaebele 
and  the  Donon  incidents  caused  Alsace  to  presage  an 
approaching  war  of  liberation.  In  the  face  of  such 
an  eventuality  the  once  popular  figure  of  Manteuffel 
was  eclipsed,  and  only  the  arrogant  attitude  of  his 
nation  remained  in  sight.  In  January,  1887,  the 
elections  in  Alsace-Lorraine  were  more  violently  an- 
tagonistic than  any  which  had  taken  place  since 
the  annexation. 

Germanization  by  gentle  methods,  by  the  prestige 
and  personal  ascendancy  of  a  man  of  high  culture 
and  great  nobility  of  soul  had  not  only  proved  a 
failure,  but  was  forever  discredited  in  German  public 
opinion.  Thenceforth  the  immigrant  officials  were 
masters  of  the  situation.  It  was  they  who  were  to 
choose  in  future  methods  of  Germanizing  Alsace- 
Lorraine,  in  conformity  with  their  ideas  and  their 
interests. 

REPRESSION   IN   1887 

The  first  of  these  was  violent  repression. 

The  Germans  could  not  understand  the  hostility 
of  the  Alsatians  to  them.  Baron  von  Manteuffel 
had  allowed  that  the  Alsatians  had  been  French  and 
that  it  had  been  impossible  for  their  feelings  to  change 
suddenly. 

The  proposition  was  too  simple  for  the  minds  of 
his  compatriots.  Their  psychology  did  not  accept 
fidelity  to  the  past,  either  in  themselves  or  others. 
Their  military  successes  had  been  so  unexpected  and 
unhoped  for,  the  realization  of  their  national  unity 


164       ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE 

had  come  about  so  suddenly,  that  they  could  not 
but  produce  infatuation  among  a  parvenu  people. 
They  felt  a  naive  admiration  for  themselves,  and 
believed  they  had  accomplished  things  of  which 
no  other  people  in  the  history  of  the  world  could 
boast. 

This  sentiment  had  rapidly  stifled  the  individual- 
ism of  the  confederated  States  in  Germany,  the  past 
seemed  small,  mediocre,  and  despicable.  "The  good 
old  times"  became  a  catchword  in  the  satirical  papers, 
which  ridiculed  the  old  German  troops  now  replaced 
by  the  valiant  and  disciplined  armies  of  Prussia.  Very 
soon,  in  view  of  their  economic  development  and  the 
pretensions  of  their  "world-politics,"  their  ancient  and 
glorious  title:  "a  nation  of  poets  and  thinkers"  sounded 
almost  like  an  insult  to  German  ears. 

A  nation  which  had  thus  turned  its  back  upon 
its  past  could  not  understand  that  the  Alsatian  people 
would  be  faithful  to  its  memories.  To  their  arrogant 
self-sufficiency  it  was  unthinkable  that  the  Alsatians 
should  not  at  the  bottom  of  their  hearts  share  their 
admiration  for  the  great  deeds  of  William  I  and  his 
paladins.  Alsace,  according  to  them,  might  think 
herself  highly  privileged  to  be  part  of  the  mighty 
German  Empire,  and  to  see  her  sons  received  into  the 
glorious  ranks  of  the  Prussian  army.  This  sentiment 
seemed  to  them  so  natural  that  they  cast  about  for  some 
purely  external  reason  to  explain  the  persistent  opposi- 
tion of  the  annexed  province.  This  they  formulated 
in  a  very  unexpected  fashion: 

If  the  Alsatians  failed  to  acclaim  the  German 
Empire,  as  they  should  have  been  inclined  to  do, 


ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE        165 

according  to  the  Germans,  it  was  because  they  were 
terrorized.  This  terror  was  not  the  effect  of  the 
regime  to  which  they  were  subjected — the  German 
dictatorship,  the  exceptional  laws,  the  systematic 
espionage,  and  the  denunciations  of  immigrant  officials. 
According  to  the  Germans,  it  was  France  who  ter- 
rorized German  Alsace;  it  was  through  fear  of  French 
public  opinion,  of  the  judgment  of  friends  and  relatives 
who  had  remained  French,  that  the  Alsatians  refused 
to  be  absorbed  in  the  German  Empire! 

The  Alsatians  are  recalcitrant  because  they  are 
terrorized  by  France!  This  was  the  axiom  obediently 
adopted  by  the  German  press  in  the  days  of  the  Statt- 
halter  von  Manteuffel.  The  idea  seems  an  extraor- 
dinary one,  but  paradox  has  no  terrors  for  the  trans- 
Rhenish  journalist,  whose  lack  of  critical  sense  and 
whose  rigid  discipline  it  is  impossible  to  exaggerate. 

It  was  this  idea,  no  doubt,  which  inspired  the  re- 
action against  the  conciliatory  regime  inaugurated 
by  the  first  Statthalter.  Since  Alsace  was  terrorized 
by  France,  it  was  necessary  that  Germany  should 
terrorize  her  still  more.  If  the  Alsatians  feared  the 
disapproval  of  their  former  compatriots,  they  must 
learn  that  their  new  masters  were  still  more  to  be 
feared,  because  they  had  more  violent  measures  at 
their  disposal.  This  programme  was  duly  carried 
out  in  1887,  the  year  of  the  Schnaebele  affair  and 
of  the  Donon  incident. 

Within  the  space  of  a  few  months  Alsace  was  sub- 
jected to  every  kind  of  German  brutality.  Deputies 
were  expelled  and  Alsatian  societies  were  dissolved. 
Political  prosecutions  took  place  on  every  side,  for 


166       ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE 

offences  such  as  seditious  cries  or  emblems,  member- 
ship of  the  League  of  Patriots,  high  treason,  etc.  To 
safeguard  the  Alsatians  against  intimidation  by  their 
French  relatives,  intercourse  with  persons  beyond  the 
frontier  was  made  impossible  by  a  regulation  prescrib- 
ing the  use  of  passports. 

Bismarck  even  hoped,  according  to  one  of  his 
successors,  that  there  would  be  an  insurrection,  and 
that  the  regime  of  repression  would  culminate  in 
bloodshed.  This  would  have  been  the  triumph  of 
the  principle  of  force. 

He  was  disappointed;  we  possessed  our  souls  in 
patience.  Alsace  gave  up  overt  protestation;  but  a 
new  Alsatian  generation  which  adopted  other  meth- 
ods of  resistance  grew  up  under  the  pressure  of  the 
brutal  measures  of  1887.  Meanwhile,  Germany  suc- 
ceeded in  introducing  the  regime  most  congenial 
to  her  national  spirit,  no  longer  mitigated  by  a  per- 
sonality such  as  that  of  Manteuffel.  This  was  the 
domination  of  immigrant  Germans,  exploiting  the 
country  as  a  foreign  colony. 

THE   REGIME    OF   OFFICIALS 

The  period  inaugurated  by  the  violent  reaction 
against  the  system  of  Manteuffel  and  the  brutal 
repressions  of  1887,  lasted  until  1901.  During  these 
years  power  was  exclusively  in  the  hands  of  the  im- 
migrant officials,  who  formed  a  close  oligarchy,  ar- 
rogant and  meddlesome. 

To  this  class  of  Germans,  who  had  come  into  the 
country  as  conquerors,  greedy  for  all  the  advantages 
of  the  situation,  and  who  not  only  monopolized  all 


ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE       167 

administrative  functions,  but  even  attempted  on 
various  occasions  to  obtain  places  in  Parliament 
from  the  electors,  Alsace  and  the  Alsatians  had  no 
rights  at  all.  The  annexed  territories  were  Imperial 
lands,  and  as  such  were  to  be  classed  with  colonies 
rather  than  with  the  confederated  States  united 
under  the  Imperial  crown.  In  relation  to  the  central 
power  at  Berlin,  they  should  be  merely  a  sort  of  a 
province,  not  a  State  with  well-defined  rights  and 
powers,  like  Bavaria  or  Wiirtemberg. 

To  justify  this  refusal  of  all  rights  to  Alsace-Lorraine, 
the  Germans  insisted  that  had  the  country  been 
united  to  Prussia  it  would  have  fared  no  better,  and 
would  have  been  in  the  position  of  a  Prussian  prov- 
ince. They  also  made  capital  of  the  fact  that,  prior 
to  the  annexation,  the  annexed  country  had  enjoyed 
no  autonomy  under  France,  and  had  merely  formed 
departments  like  the  rest. 

Such  were  the  sophisms  to  which  the  Germans  had 
recourse  to  justify  their  dictatorship  and  their  ex- 
ceptional laws,  to  keep  Alsace-Lorraine  in  direct 
dependence  upon  Berlin  and  to  refuse  her  any  measure 
of  independence  and  autonomy.  But  the  conclusions 
they  drew  from  these  arguments  did  not  only  affect 
the  political  situation  of  the  country:  if  Alsace-Lorraine, 
as  territory  of  the  Empire,  had  no  rights,  they,  the 
Imperial  officials,  representing  the  central  authority, 
were  alone  entitled  to  hold  public  office.  This  was  their 
monopoly.  Every  Alsatian  who  solicited  for  a  post  was 
looked  upon  as  an  intruder,  trying  to  snatch  from  some 
member  of  the  ruling  caste  a  right  that  was  his  due. 

Thus  the  antagonism  between  the  native  Alsatians 


168       ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE 

and  the  immigrant  Germans  was  perpetuated  and 
even  intensified.  At  this  juncture  it  was  no  longer 
possible  to  speak  of  the  terrorization  of  the  annexed 
provinces  by  French  opinion.  It  became  necessary 
to  find  some  other  explanation  of  the  fidelity  of  the 
Alsatians  to  the  French  idea.  Those  who  would  not 
rally  to  Germany  were  not  historisch  denkend ! — they 
thought  after  the  manner  of  persons  who  have  had 
no  historical  education!  This  argument,  reiterated 
for  years  by  the  German  newspapers,  implied  a  pro- 
found contempt;  it  emanated  from  the  dogma  of  the 
superiority  definitely  acquired  by  Germany  in  the 
history  of  the  world. 

Those  who  did  not  acclaim  the  new  Empire  had 
not  grasped  the  fact  that  the  hand  of  history  has 
consecrated  Germany  for  all  time,  that  the  hegemony 
of  Germany  is  assured  and  that  no  other  nation  will 
ever  be  able  to  undermine  it,  and,  above  all,  that  the 
country  to  which  we  proposed  to  remain  faithful  is 
old  and  decrepit,  and  doomed  to  inevitable  decadence. 

The  Germans  proposed  to  monopolize  history.  Their 
past — in  the  form  taught  by  themselves — was  to  be 
the  only  one  on  record.  At  the  word  of  command 
we  were  to  forget  over  two  centuries  of  our  national 
life.  The  most  vivid  and  glorious  memories  of  our 
families  and  communes  were  to  disappear.  Sub- 
sequently, the  immigrants  showed  to  what  depths 
of  baseness  they  could  descend  by  their  actions  against 
the  guardians  of  military  tombs,  the  Souvenir  FranQais 
and  the  Souvenir  Alsacien-Lorrain. 

These  were  conditions  we  could  not  accept:  even 
had  we  believed  in  Germany's  mission  in  the  future, 


ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE        169 

we   could   not   have   renounced   our  past   without   a 
loss  of  dignity  and  a  failure  in  honour. 

Our  fidelity  to  our  past  necessarily  led  to  con- 
flicts. The  German  Empire — which  has  always  been 
eager  to  celebrate  its  jubilees  of  twenty -five  years, 
as  if  it  had  a  presentiment  that  it  would  not  celebrate 
those  of  fifty  years — had  commemorated  the  twenty- 
fifth  anniversary  of  the  battles  of  Alsace  in  1895.  A 
French  journalist  who  had  been  present  at  these  re- 
joicings contrasted  them  in  Le  Petit  Journal  with  an 
interview  he  reported  with  one  of  our  deputies  to  the 
Reichstag,  M.  Jacques  Preiss.  It  contained  the  fol- 
lowing passage: 

Not  to  speak  of  their  rights,  for  which  they  claim  respect,  the 
Alsacien-Lorrains  cannot  believe  that  France  has  finally  accepted 
the  blows  she  has  received— her  defeat;  that  she  has  forgotten 
what  has  been  taken  from  her,  and  certain  humiliations,  among 
others  the  entry  of  the  German  troops  into  Paris;  if  she  were 
other  than  what  we  suppose,  France  would  no  longer  be  herself; 
she  would  lose  all  her  prestige  in  the  world,  and  abandon  her  role 
in  history. 

M.  Preiss  apparently  did  not  accept  the  dogma  of 
the  historic  mission  definitely  assigned  to  Germany; 
he  believed  that  France  has  still  a  part  to  play  in 
the  world.  M.  Preiss  was  not  historisch  denkend.  In 
German  eyes,  the  passage  I  have  just  quoted  was 
a  crime,  a  crime  which  led  to  M.  Jacques  Preiss' 
prosecution  on  a  charge  of  high  treason. 

A  few  months  later,  Germany  celebrated  the  cen- 
tenary of  her  first  .Emperor.  The  Government  of 
Alsace-Lorraine  organized  great  festivities,  and  the 


170       ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE 

official  press  insisted  that  the  public  schools,  the 
municipalities,  and  the  societies  should  take  part  in 
them.  In  the  face  of  this  campaign  the  Colmarer 
Zeitung  declared  in  a  categoric  article  that  the  Alsatians 
had  no  part  in  these  rejoicings.  Wir  machen  nicht  mit 
— we  will  not  make  merry  with  them.  And  as  the 
Government  had  also  prescribed  religious  ceremonies 
the  writer,  Abbe  Sipp,  had  added:  "We  will  pray  for 
the  dead  who  fell  in  the  wars  made  by  William  I,  and 
we  will  also  pray  for  this  Emperor;  for  we  remember 
that  before  God,  the  Supreme  Judge,  the  Emperor  is 
judged  as  well  as  the  beggar,  and  that  we  find  in  the 
Scriptures  these  awful  words  bearing  on  rulers  and 
their  fate:  'Mercy  will  soon  pardon  the  meanest,  but 
mighty  men  shall  be  mightily  tormented." 

M.  Sipp  not  only  failed  to  recognize  the  mission  of 
Germany  on  earth,  but  he  dared  to  speak  of  terrors 
of  divine  justice  in  connection  with  the  Emperor 
whom  all  Germans  venerate.  The  Germans  per- 
fectly understood  the  allusion  to  the  falsification  of 
the  Ems  telegram  which  William  I  had  condoned, 
and  by  which  he  had  profited. 

The  newspaper  was  suppressed  by  a  dictatorial 
decree,  and  was  only  saved  from  prosecution  by  the 
intercession  of  the  Grand  Duchess  of  Baden,  daughter 
of  William  I. 

The  two  incidents  cited  suffice  to  illustrate  the 
new  form  assumed  by  the  opposition  of  the  annexed 
territories.  A  new  generation  was  arising  in  Alsace 
in  the  last  years  of  the  nineteenth  century.  It  had 
never  known  France;  it  had  studied  in  Germany 
and  served  its  term  in  the  German  army.  As  they 


ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE       171 

were  obliged  to  live  in  a  country  which  France  had 
not  been  able  to  liberate,  these  young  people  might 
have  been  allowed  more  freedom  in  the  choice  of 
their  country.  They  might  have  become  reconciled  to 
Germany  without  any  rupture  of  personal  ties. 

But  to  win  over  this  new  generation,  it  should  'have 
been  made  possible  for  them  to  adopt  Germany  as 
their  country.  On  the  contrary,  the  official  regime, 
anxious  to  uphold  the  privileges  of  the  immigrants, 
seemed  deliberately  to  do  all  it  could  to  make  ad- 
hesion to  Germany  impossible  for  them.  To  expect 
a  people  to  blot  out  two  centuries  of  its  history,  to 
ask  sons  to  repudiate  the  past  of  their  fathers,  was  to 
impose  a  loss  of  national  dignity  and  an  indifference 
to  family  tradition.  Those  who  aspired  to  Germanize 
Alsace  could  not  see  that  what  they  required  was 
something  base  and  vile,  and  that  they  would  condemn 
all  those  who  acquiesced  to  the  contempt  of  Alsatians 
faithful  to  their  past. 

If  the  Germans  had  had  any  chivalry,  they  would 
have  sought  some  means  of  allowing  those  who  be- 
came German  to  retain  their  self-respect.  They  never 
understood  this.  Those  Alsatians  who  went  over 
to  the  Germans  secretly  put  forward  motives  of  ma- 
terial gain  to  excuse  themselves  to  their  compatriots. 
Germany  could  build  no  sure  foundation  on  the  ad- 
hesion of  a  few  sordid  and  cowardly  souls. 

THE    PIONEERS    OF   KULTUR 

The  ascendancy  of  the  officials  was  brought  to  an 
end  in  1901  by  the  personal  intervention  of  William 
II.  The  Emperor  disgraced  Von  Puttkammer,  the 


172       ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE 

Secretary  of  State,  who  had  been  the  leader  of  the 
party,  and  replaced  him  by  M.  von  Koeller.  Having 
received  formal  orders  to  inaugurate  a  system  of 
conciliation,  Von  Koeller  conscientiously  carried  out 
his  mission,  little  as  it  seemed  to  accord  with  his  past 
and  with  his  reputation  for  harshness. 

By  a  few  authoritative  measures  he  curbed  the 
officials,  confining  them  strictly  to  the  exercise  of 
their  functions.  The  dictatorship  and  the  excep- 
tional laws  were  abrogated.  The  new  Government 
interfered  as  little  as  possible  in  public  life,  leaving 
it  to  the  free  play  of  parties.  It  thus  succeeded  in 
disarming  political  opposition. 

If  the  national  question  had  been  a  mere  outcome 
of  the  political  situation,  it  might  have  been  sup- 
posed that  Germanization  had  now  been  achieved. 
Nothing  could  have  been  further  from  the  fact.  On 
the  contary,  in  the  place  of  the  former  political  con- 
flict, a  new  contest  arose,  more  bitter,  more  violent, 
and  more  offensive  than  those  which  had  preceded  it, 
in  that  it  affected  questions  and  persons  generally 
respected  in  political  struggles. 

Now  that  the  Koeller  regime  no  longer  allowed  the 
immigrant  officials  a  preponderance  in  the  direction 
of  government,  and  they  found  themselves  strictly 
confined  to  their  professional  tasks,  while  a  place 
was  made  in  the  administration  for  the  sons  of  the 
soil,  they  dreaded  a  restriction  of  their  privileges. 
Their  monopoly  was  attacked.  As  they  did  not 
dare  to  enter  upon  an  overt  campaign  against  the 
regime,  they  emphasized  all  the  differences  that 
separated  them  from  the  native  population,  and 


ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE       173 

posed  as  the  representatives  of  Deutschtum  in  con- 
trast to  the  Welschlinge,  of  Germanism  as  opposed 
to  the  Francillons.  They  incarnated  German  kultur  in 
the  sight  of  a  population  attached  to  French  culture. 

From  this  time  forth,  the  German  immigrants 
affected  to  look  upon  the  native  Alsatians  as  a  re- 
actionary and  unenlightened  mass.  Persisting  in  their 
attachment  to  a  vanished  past,  and  faithful  to  a  senile 
and  decadent  France,  they  had  been  unable  to  keep 
abreast  of  the  progress  represented  in  the  world  by  the 
German  Empire.  Alsace  lacked  the  moral  maturity 
which  would  have  entitled  her  to  a  place  in  the  German 
fold;  she  was  unreif.  The  immigrants  had  therefore 
a  civilizing  mission  to  accomplish  among  this  inferior 
population:  they  announced  themselves  as  kultur- 
pioniers,  the  pioneers  of  kultur. 

Germany  had  taken  possession  of  science  at  the 
outset,  by  creating  a  monopoly  of  teaching  in  favour 
of  official  methods  and  doctrines.  She  now  claimed 
to  inculcate  her  ideas  of  the  good  and  the  beautiful. 
We  felt  little  admiration  for  the  too  numerous  speci- 
mens of  German  art  vouchsafed  to  us,  in  spite  of  the 
efforts  made  to  cultivate  our  taste  for  these.  The 
immigrants  boasted  of  having  introduced  physical 
culture  and  love  of  sport  among  us.  Their  taste  for 
excursions  had  led  to  the  discovery  of  the  Vosges,  of 
which,  it  appeared,  we  had  ignored  the  beauties  if 
not  the  existence.  But  German  pretensions  went 
beyond  all  this:  attached  as  we  were  to  the  shallow  and 
superficial  culture  of  France,  we  had  no  conception  of 
duty,  of  the  categoric  imperative,  of  scruples  of  con- 
science and  moral  delicacy. 


174       ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE 

Our  inferiority  was  caused  by  the  defective  educa- 
tion of  our  mothers.  Brought  up  in  French  boarding- 
schools,  the  women  of  the  Alsatian  middle  classes 
were  even  less  accessible  to  German  kultur  than  the 
men.  The  early  education  of  children,  family  life, 
and  social  habits  had  accordingly  remained  French. 
The  Germans  wished  to  change  our  manner  of  life, 
and  to  this  end  they  demanded  that  Alsatian  girls 
should  be  prevented  from  going  to  school  in  France, 
and  that  they  should  be  forced  to  submit  to  German 
education.  The  Germanization  which  had  failed  as 
applied  to  the  men  was  now  to  be  essayed  with  the 
women  and  young  girls.  Our  private  life,  our  family 
circle,  were  to  be  submitted  to  the  control  of  the 
pioneers  of  kultur. 

This  new  pretension  was  lacking  alike  in  discretion 
and  delicacy.  It  was  an  ignoble  attempt  to  coerce 
the  very  personality  of  a  people.  The  application  of 
the  principle  by  tactless  persons  could  not  fail  to  be 
insulting.  I  will  give  an  instance. 

At  a  pan-German  Congress  held  at  Wiesbaden,  a 
German  clergyman,  Pastor  Spieser,  gave  an  account 
of  his  campaign  in  favour  of  German  kultur.  When 
visiting  one  of  his  colleagues,  he  had  noticed  that  the 
latter  talked  French  to  his  family.  He  tried  by  every 
means  to  persuade  his  friend  to  adopt  the  German 
language,  but  was  met  by  the  objection  that  the 
wife  of  his  colleague  insisted  on  speaking  French. 
He  then  pointed  out  the  weakness  and  cowardice 
of  allowing  oneself  to  be  thus  dominated  by  a  woman. 
Finding  his  efforts  unsuccessful,  he  sent  his  friend 
a  book  entitled  "Ueber  den  biologischen  Schwachsinn 


ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE       175 

des  Weibes"  (On  the  Biological  Imbecility  of  Woman). 
The  Pan-German  Congress  heartily  applauded  this 
courageous  manifestation  of  German  kultur. 

The  struggle  took  the  most  varied  forms.  On 
one  occasion  the  German  newspapers  sought  to  bring 
William  II  himself  into  the  field.  They  declared 
that  during  one  of  his  visits  to  Urville  he  had  said 
that  the  use  of  soap  must  be  introduced  into  Lorraine! 

The  Germans  did  not  foresee  that  in  using  such 
weapons  they  laid  themselves  open  to  counter-thrusts 
impossible  to  parry.  It  is  dangerous  to  make  arrogant 
claims  to  a  superiority  by  no  means  indisputable. 
"Ready  to  wound,"  they  forgot  that  they  were  ridic- 
ulous. Zisliu  and  Hansi  reminded  them  of  the  fact 
by  their  caricatures. 

The  immigrants  seemed  unaware  that  arrogance 
and  insult  are  not  good  instruments  of  political  domina- 
tion ;  they  had  no  idea  to  what  a  trenchant  and  popu- 
lar attack  they  exposed  themselves  in  provoking  the 
sarcasms  of  our  caricaturists.  A  new  warfare  was 
waged  with  unprecedented  vehemence  and  asperity. 
Politicians  had  to  follow  the  movement,  and  the 
immigrants  on  their  side  had  recourse  to  the  law.  A 
long  series  of  political  prosecutions  chastened  those 
who  had  dared  to  laugh  at  kultur. 

The  antagonism  between  culture  and  kultur  had 
greatly  widened  the  chasm  that  divided  the  native 
population  and  the  immigrant  officials.  On  the  eve 
of  the  war,  the  two  groups  seemed  as  irreconcilable 
as  on  the  morrow  of  the  annexation.  The  resulting 
political  struggles,  the  debates  on  the  new  constitu- 
tion, the  affairs  of  Graff enstaden  and  Saverne  had 


176       ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE 

further  embittered  the  situation.  Herr  von  Jagow 
expressed  the  facts  in  a  phrase:  The  Germans  of 
Alsace-Lorraine  were  in  an  enemy's  country  in  1914. 

All  the  methods  directed  to  the  Germanization  of 
the  inhabitants  had  failed.  The  Alsatians  had  re- 
mained unmoved  by  the  amiability  of  Manteuffel 
and  the  political  concessions  of  Koeller.  Given  over 
to  the  tyranny  of  the  immigrant  officials,  they  had 
endured  the  terror  of  1887  with  sang-froid,  and  had 
refused  with  dignity  to  forget  their  past.  For  the 
Alsatians  who  rallied  to  the  masters  from  base  or 
interested  motives  the  people  had  nothing  but  con- 
tempt; for  the  Germans  who  offered  them  the  bless- 
ings of  kultur  they  had  nothing  but  ridicule. 

Germany,  having  set  herself  an  impossible  task, 
had  used  means  directly  opposed  to  the  attainment 
of  her  object.  She  could  not  succeed;  Germaniza- 
tion was  foredoomed  to  failure. 

I  have  now  explained  to  you  in  a  few  words  why 
Alsace  considered  herself  an  integral  part  of  France, 
in  spite  of  the  dialect  spoken  by  the  lower  classes, 
and  why  she  has  retained  her  affection  for  her  mother 
country  throughout  forty-four  years  of  German  domi- 
nation. It  might  seem  from  what  has  been  said  that 
the  question  of  Alsace-Lorraine  was  that  of  a  dispute 
which  only  concerned  France  and  Germany. 

But  it  is  by  no  means  the  case.  The  question  of 
Alsace-Lorraine  was  the  first  manifestation  of  that 
madness  which  invaded  Germany  after  her  victories, 
and  has  grown  steadily  ever  since.  As  such,  it  con- 
cerned all  Europe.  The  Alsatian  and  Lorraine  dep- 
uties of  the  Bordeaux  [Assembly  recognized  this,  for  in 


ALSACE  UNDER  GERMAN  RULE       177 

their  declaration  of  February  17,  1871,  they  inserted  a 
passage  addressed  to  Europe  at  large: 

"Europe  cannot  permit  or  ratify  the  abandon- 
ment of  Alsace  and  Lorraine.  The  civilized  nations, 
as  guardians  of  justice  and  national  rights,  cannot 
remain  indifferent  to  the  fate  of  their  neighbours, 
under  pain  of  becoming,  in  their  turn,  victims  of  the 
outrages  they  have  tolerated.  Modern  Europe  can- 
not allow  a  people  to  be  seized  like  a  herd  of  cattle; 
she  cannot  continue  deaf  to  the  repeated  protests  of 
threatened  nationalities,  she  owes  it  to  her  instinct  of 
self-preservation  to  forbid  such  abuses  of  power.  She 
knows,  too,  that  the  unity  of  France  is  now,  as  in  the 
past,  a  guarantee  of  the  general  order  of  the  world,  a 
barrier  against  the  spirit  of  conquest  and  invasion. 

"Peace  concluded  at  the  price  of  a  cession  of  ter- 
ritory could  be  nothing  but  a  costly  truce,  and  not  a 
final  peace.  It  would  be  for  all  a  cause  of  internal 
unrest,  a  permanent  and  legitimate  provocation  to  war." 

Europe  was  unmoved,  but  our  deputies  were  right. 
Since  the  annexation  of  Alsace  and  Lorraine,  the  world 
has  been  given  over  to  militarism.  Intoxicated  by 
her  lust  for  hegemony  and  world-domination,  Ger- 
many threatened  every  other  country,  and  when  the 
moment  seemed  to  her  propitious,  she  let  loose  the 
terrors  of  war.  But  this  time  Europe  understands, 
she  has  resisted  the  blow.  Since  the  crime  of  the 
Lusitania  even  America  is  beginning  to  understand. 

We  await  with  confidence  the  reestablishment  of 
justice  in  the  world  and  our  speedy  return  to  our 
French  fatherland. 


IX 
THE  SERVIANS  AND  AUSTRIA 

By  G.  M.  TBEVELYAN 


IX 
THE  SERVIANS  AND  AUSTRIA 

IN  AUGUST,  1914,  hostilities  commenced  in  four 
districts  of  Europe,  corresponding  to  four  great 
questions,  each  of  which  had  directly  or  indirectly 
its  part  in  causing  the  war. 
These  are: — 

1.  Belgium. 

2.  Alsace-Lorraine. 

3.  Poland  (Russian,  Prussian,  and  Austrian). 

4.  Servia. 

I  am  asked  to  write  about  Servia.  It  is  of  interest  to 
us  all  to  know  what  sort  of  people  are  these  Servians, 
and  what  are  the  hopes  or  ambitions  with  which  they 
are  now  waging  war. 

I  am  afraid  I  can  only  give  a  superficial  answer,  but  it 
will  be  at  least  first  hand,  for  I  was  travelling  last  year 
in  those  parts  and  conversed  with  many  Servians. 
They  were  then,  as  they  are  again  at  this  moment,  a 
nation  in  arms,  a  people  encamped  against  its  enemies. 
They  sent  on  us  travellers  most  hospitably,  not  from 
town  to  town,  but  from  army  to  army,  as  they  lay 
awaiting  the  onslaught  of  the  Bulgarians,  which  came 
a  week  or  two  after  we  had  left.  They  had  just  beaten 
the  Turks,  and  they  were,  as  they  well  knew,  about 
to  fight  the  Bulgarians,  but  they  bore  no  animosity 
against  the  Bulgarians,  much  as  they  feared  them — 

181 


182         THE  SERVIANS  AND  AUSTRIA 

and  little  even  against  the  ancient  Turkish  enemy, 
now  that  they  had  just  driven  him  from  Macedonia. 
Their  hatred  was  all  for  Austria.  Again  and  again  I 
heard  said  something  of  this  sort : — 

"This  Turkish  war  that  we  have  fought,  and  this 
Bulgarian  war  that  we  must  fight,  are  only  preludes  to 
our  real  national  war — the  war  against  Austria.  The 
armaments  with  which  we  conquered  the  Turks  were 
made  against  Austria,  and  only  directed  against  Turkey 
as  an  afterthought.  We  regret  that  we  shall  have  to 
fight  Bulgaria." 

Even  then,  on  the  very  eve  of  the  Bulgarian  war  of 
last  year,  hatred  of  Austria  was  the  dominant  national 
sentiment. 

Why  this  intense  hatred  of  Austria? 

It  is  because  Servia  is  only  one  part  of  the  great  south 
Slav  race,  which  is  found  in  the  provinces  of  Bosnia, 
Herzegovina,  Croatia,  Slavonia,  and  Dalmatia. 

All  those  provinces  are  "under  the  mighty  Austrian," 
and  are  most  bitterly  oppressed  by  him.  The  Austrians 
treat  the  south  Slav  race  as  they  used  to  treat  the 
Italians  when  Austria  ruled  Italy.  And  the  Servians 
intend  to  liberate  their  brother  Slavs,  just  as  the  little 
state  of  Piedmont  liberated  the  rest  of  Italy.  For 
this  reason  many  of  the  young  men  in  Servia  belong 
to  a  party  called  the  Piedmontese  party,  and  the 
bookshops  at  Belgrade  contained  a  surprising  propor- 
tion of  books  about  the  rising  of  Italy  against  Austria 
in  the  time  of  Cavour  and  Garibaldi,  because  that 
was  the  model  which  the  Servians  set  out  to  imitate. 

But,  just  as  little  Piedmont  required  the  France  of 
Napoleon  III  to  help  her  in  order  to  expel  the  Austrians 


THE  SERVIANS  AND  AUSTRIA          183 

from  the  other  provinces  of  Italy,  so  Servia  requires 
Russian  aid  before  she  can  hope  to  expel  the  Austrians 
from  Greater  Servia.  In  this  cause  there  is  a  generous 
feeling  in  Russia  which  has  united  all  parties — Govern- 
mental, Conservative,  Liberal,  Revolutionary — in  a 
"holy  war"  to  liberate  their  brother  Slavs.  Yet  there 
is  no  fear  whatever  that  Greater  Servia  will  afterward 
be  unduly  subservient  to  Russia.  Bulgaria  was  created 
by  Russia,  but  has  shown  her  independence  of  outlook. 
So  also  will  Servia.  And  the  south  Slav  race,  though 
united  to  the  Russians  in  religion  and  akin  in  race  and 
language,  has  distinct  characteristics  of  its  own.  One 
of  these  is  a  love  of  independence.  They  spoke  to 
me  of  the  Russians  as  their  blood -kindred  and  their 
friends,  but  they  did  not  like  the  Russian  form  of 
government. 

The  Servians  are  an  extremely  democratic  people, 
more  so  than  the  English,  Americans,  or  any  other 
people  among  whom  there  are  great  distinctions  of 
rank  or  of  wealth.  The  Servians  are  a  nation  of 
peasant-proprietors,  each  man  with  his  own  piece  of 
land;  86  per  cent,  of  the  population  belongs  to  this 
class.  The  feudalism  of  Hungary,  the  junkerism  of 
Prussia,  the  landlordism  of  England,  all  better  or  worse 
manifestations  of  the  same  system  of  holding  land  in 
large  blocks,  finds  no  analogy  in  Servia.  The  Turks 
during  their  occupation  of  the  country  destroyed  the 
old  feudal  class  of  Servia,  so  that  now  that  the  Turks 
have  gone  it  is  the  purest  democracy.  The  typical 
Servian  peasant  or  soldier  (who  are  one  and  the  same) 
is  a  fine,  upstanding  type  of  humanity,  who  looks  you 
in  the  face  as  an  equal.  They  are  also  a  very  pleasant 


184         THE  SERVIANS  AND  AUSTRIA 

and  kindly  people,  as  indeed  are  most  of  the  inhabitants 
of  the  Balkans  when  they  are  not  engaged  in  racial 
war.  The  Servians  have  lightness  and  gaiety,  and 
have  been  called  the  French  of  the  Balkans. 

To  such  a  people,  thoroughly  equalitarian  in  senti- 
ment, and  quite  unaccustomed  either  to  feudalism  or 
Kaiserdom  in  any  form,  both  the  Russian  and  the 
Austrian  systems  of  government  are  equally  alien. 
If  they  win  the  great  national  war  they  are  now  waging, 
it  is  a  democratic  state  that  they  will  form  out  of  the 
Serb  and  Croat  provinces  which  they  intend  to  liberate 
from  Austria. 

The  Servians,  like  every  one  else,  have  the  defects  of 
their  qualities.  If  they  have  the  merit  of  equalitarian- 
ism,  they  lack  leadership.  They  have  very  little  in 
the  way  of  an  upper  or  even  a  middle  class,  the  mer- 
cantile element  being  very  slightly  developed  among 
them  as  yet.  If  they  have  the  peasant's  virtues,  they 
have  his  limitation  of  outlook. 

I  saw  a  good  deal  of  the  army  officers,  and  learned  to 
like  them  from  conversations  carried  on  in  French  or  a 
little  English;  they  are  not  a  "military  caste,"  or  even 
a  class  socially  apart  from  their  soldiers.  They  are 
many  of  them  professional  men,  clerks,  and  better- 
to-do  peasants.  The  army  discipline  is  good,  but 
they  live  on  easy  terms  with  their  men.  They  can 
be  seen  dancing  the  kolo,  the  pretty  national  dance 
of  interwoven  steps,  with  their  men  hand-in-hand. 
In  battle  they  say  not  "Forward,  men!"  but  "Let  us 
charge,  my  brothers,"  and  they  have  not  to  say  it 
twice;  their  army  is  truly  a  democracy  in  arms.  They 
have  fine  French-made  cannon  and  rifles,  and  have 


RUSSIA 


AUSTtyb  -HUNGARY 


If 


LT 


TRANSYLVANIA  \ 


186         THE  SERVIANS  AND  AUSTRIA 

now  in  less  than  two  years  given  a  good  account  of 
themselves  against  Turk,  Bulgarian,  and  Austrian. 

The  policy  of  Servia,  like  that  of  every  other  Balkan 
State,  including  Austria,  has  undoubtedly  been  grasp- 
ing. Their  treatment  of  subject  races,  Albanian 
or  Bulgarian,  has  been  no  better  than  the  treatment 
accorded  to  subject  races  by  Greek,  Bulgar,  Serb, 
or  Austrian,  who  have  none  of  them  much  idea  of 
generosity  and  liberality  in  dealings  with  alien  sub- 
jects or  foreigners.  That  may  come  later,  but  it  will 
not  come  until  the  states-system  of  southeast  Europe 
has  been  recast  as  far  as  possible  on  racial  lines,  and 
until  none  of  the  Balkan  States  any  longer  feels  a 
bitter  sense  of  injustice. 

If  Bulgaria  had  beaten  Servia,  Rumania,  and 
Greece  last  year,  she  would  have  been  unjust  to  them. 
She  was  beaten  and  they  were  unjust  to  her,  not  leav- 
ing her  with  enough  territory.  She  ought  to  be  com- 
pensated, and  there  will  never  be  peace  in  the  Balkans 
until  she  has  been.  But  she  cannot  be  compensated 
by  Servia  unless  Servia  is  allowed  her  proper  ex- 
pansion to  the  north,  into  the  provinces  which  are 
called  Austrian,  but  are  in  reality  southern  Slav. 

It  was  Austria  who  caused  the  fatal  quarrel  of 
Bulgaria  with  Servia  last  year.  After  the  successful 
Balkan  war  against  Turkey  in  1912-3,  Austria  did  her 
best  to  set  the  victors  by  the  ears,  being  determined 
to  prevent  the  formation  of  a  Balkan  confederacy. 
Furthermore,  she  has  for  a  generation  past  prevented 
the  legitimate  expansion  of  Servia  into  the  Slav  north, 
so  forcing  her  to  fight  for  all  she  could  keep  in  the 
Macedonian  south,  at  the  expense  of  Bulgaria. 


THE  SERVIANS  AND  AUSTRIA         187 

If  Servia  can  have  her  legitimate  expansion  north- 
west, she  would  be  ready  to  give  to  Bulgaria  some  of 
those  districts  which  she  insisted  on  keeping  last  year. 
To  bring  about  this  reconciliation  of  the  Christian 
States  of  the  Balkans  in  the  only  possible  way  is  an 
aim  of  British  policy  now  that  war  has  been  forced  upon 
us  by  the  violation  of  Belgium.  It  is  a  just  and 
liberal  policy. 

Closely  allied  to  the  Servians  are  the  Montenegrin 
mountaineers,  almost  identical  in  race  and  language, 
but  more  primitive  and  merely  warlike.  They  will 
some  day  form  part  of  the  Greater  Servia,  whether  by 
complete  union  or  federation.  In  all  her  recent  wars 
the  Montenegrins  have  acted  as  if  they  were  Servians. 

The  push  northwest  of  Servia,  if  it  takes  place  owing 
to  Russian  victories,  will  not  be  the  swamping  of 
"Teuton  culture"  by  Slav  barbarism.  It  will  be  the 
liberation  of  Slav  provinces  most  cruelly  oppressed  by 
the  Austrians.  There  are  two  main  branches  of  the 
south  Slav  race  in  these  provinces — the  Serbs  and 
Croats.  Together  with  the  Slovenes,  another  kindred 
race,  the  south  Slavs  in  Austro-Hungary  number  seven 
millions.  The  Serbs  belong  generally  to  the  Orthodox 
Church,  the  Croats  are  generally  Roman  Catholics. 
The  Austrians  count  on  this  division  in  religion,  which 
undoubtedly  makes  some  division  in  sentiment.  But 
now  that  the  matter  is  put  to  the  test,  even  in  Croatia, 
the  Austrians  are  only  able  to  hold  the  country  by 
imprisoning  the  leading  men  and  terrorizing  the  in- 
habitants. 

In  Bosnia,  Herzegovina,  Croatia,  Slavonia,  Dalmatia, 
there  is  the  most  absolute  reign  of  terror,  and  indeed  so 


188  THE  SERVIANS  AND  AUSTRIA 

there  was  for  many  years  before  the  war.  It  is  only 
now  intensified. 

The  Austrian  rule  there,  as  in  Italy  of  old,  has  its 
two  well-known  characteristics — material  efficiency  and 
political  tyranny.  They  can  make  excellent  roads  and 
railways,  and  have  done  much  to  bring  material  civiliza- 
tion into  places  as  backward  as  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina 
were  when  the  Turk  quitted  them.  But  politically 
they  have  no  idea  save  repression.  The  German- 
Austrians  were  indeed  forced,  after  their  defeat  in  1866, 
to  take  the  Magyars  of  Hungary  into  partnership  with 
them  on  equal  terms.  Since  that  date  the  Austrians 
and  Hungarians  have  combined  to  oppress  the  Slavs. 

It  is  said  that  the  Archduke,  murdered  at  Sarajevo, 
intended  to  do  something  to  liberalize  the  system  in 
these  Slav  provinces  when  he  came  to  the  Austrian 
throne.  That  adds  another  reason  why  we  must  all 
regret  that  murder  in  blood  and  tears.  Whether 
such  a  scheme  was  not  too  late,  whether  such  a  reversal 
of  Austrian  policy  could  have  been  carried  through  by 
the  will  of  one  man,  we  shall,  alas!  never  know.  But 
the  Austrian  assertion  that  the  Archduke's  murder 
was  prepared  or  instigated  in  Servia  is  utterly  unproven 
and  in  the  highest  degree  unlikely.  It  is  unproven, 
for  Austria  had  every  reason  to  advance  the  proofs 
if  she  had  them,  and  she  has  advanced  none.  It  is 
unlikely,  because  Servia  was  engaged  in  various  delicate 
negotiations  at  home,  among  other  things  a  negotiation 
with  Montenegro,  and  it  is  absurd  to  suppose  that 
she  would  have  chosen  that  moment  to  force  on  a 
crisis,  even  if  she  were  held  capable  of  doing  so  by  so 
base  a  crime.  The  act  needs  no  such  explanation; 


THE  SERVIANS  AND  AUSTRIA          189 

it  was  the  unfortunate  outcome  in  a  few  desperate 
minds  of  the  fierce  discontent  of  the  Slav  provinces 
under  Austrian  and  Hungarian  tyranny. 

The  charge  against  Servia  of  murdering  the  Arch- 
duke has  nothing  more  in  its  favour  than  the  counter- 
charge against  the  high  Austrian  party  of  leaving  the 
Archduke  unguarded  in  order  that  he  might  be  as- 
sassinated. The  one  charge  is  worth  the  other.  Yet, 
without  proof  and  against  likelihood,  Austria  stated 
that  Servia  was  implicated  in  the  murder.  And  by  a 
forty-eight  hours'  ultimatum,  demanding  that  Servia 
should  surrender  its  sovereign  rights  and  abase  her- 
self to  the  dust  before  Austria,  that  country  has  forced 
on  a  European  war.  By  action  equally  unjustifiable 
toward  Belgium,  Germany  has  involved  England  in 
this  conflict  that  sprang  from  these  old  blood-spots  in 
the  East. 

England  cannot  be  said  to  be  fighting  for  Servia,  but 
in  so  far  as  she  has  been  drawn  into  this  quarrel,  she  is 
fighting  for  justice  and  liberty,  and  to  bring  about  by 
the  only  possible  means  a  tolerable  state  of  things  in 
southeastern  Europe  and  peace  in  the  Balkan  Penin- 
sula. This  can  only  be  done  by  the  expansion  of  Servia 
northward  into  the  Slav  provinces  that  long  to  be 
liberated  by  her,  and  the  compensation  of  Bulgaria 
which  will  then  be  rendered  possible. 

The  rearrangements  would  necessarily  involve  the 
equally  just  advance  of  Italy  into  the  Italian  districts 
which  were  only  kept  from  her  by  the  Austrian  sword. 
When  eastern  Europe  is  divided  as  far  as  possible  on 
racial  and  national  lines,  there  may  at  last  be  peace 
and  content  in  those  unhappy  regions. 


X 
WHY  THE  ALLIES  WILL  WIN 

An  Interview  with 
The  Rt..Hon,  D.  LLOYD  GEORGE, 

Minister  of  Munitions, 
By  The  Editor  of  the  "Secok"  of  Milan. 


WHY  THE  ALLIES  WILL  WIN 

THE  British  Minister  of  Munitions  started  the 
conversation  with  that  simple  directness  of 
manner  and  natural  confidence  of  the  man 
who  knows  his  own  mind  and  has  no  difficulty  in 
seeing  into  the  mind  of  his  interlocutor.  He  asked 
me  at  once  many  questions.  "Have  you  come  from 
Milan?  "  "  How  are  things  going  on  in  Italy?  "  "  What 
is  the  state  of  public  opinion?"  "What  is  Giolitti 
doing?"  "What  about  munitions?"  "Are  you  mak- 
ing good  progress  in  producing  shells?" 

The  reader  must  not  imagine  that  all  this  was  the 
common  manoeuvre  of  the  man  in  a  high  and  responsible 
position  who,  when  speaking  to  a  journalist,  prefers 
asking  to  answering  questions.  Mr.  Lloyd  George 
seemed  to  me  sincerely  interested  in  the  information 
and  opinions  he  was  eliciting  from  me,  as  he 
undoubtedly  was  conversant  with  our  affairs  and 
political  situation  before  and  after  the  war.  I  spoke 
freely  to  him  on  several  points,  and  he  freely  opened 
his  mind. 

He  seemed  particularly  well  informed  as  to  our 
financial  and  economic  position,  and  he  entirely  con- 
curred with  my  view  that  English  capitalists  and  mer- 
chants should  not  lose  this  opportunity  of  displacing 
German  influences  by  getting  a  firm  foothold  in  our 

193 


194          WHY  THE  ALLIES  WILL  WIN 

country,  and  establishing  with  us  larger  commercial 
and  financial  relations. 

As  to  our  war — 

"Oh!"  said  Mr.  Lloyd  George,  "I  know  what  your 
war  is  like.  I  received  some  time  ago,  from  an  English 
officer,  a  photograph  taken  on  your  fighting  line. 
I  could  hardly  believe  my  eyes.  The  photograph  re- 
produced a  moving  scene  among  some  Alpine  peaks. 

"To  think  that  fighting  is  going  on  at  such  heights, 
among  insuperable  rocks,  on  eternal  snows,  that  you 
are  dragging  your  guns  up  there,  that  you  have  to 
approach  your  enemy  by  hand  over  hand,  is  something 
amazing.  And  I  have  been  told  what  the  Carso 
plateau  is.  Why,  it  is  like  a  rocky  wall  which  bars 
the  gate  of  Italy.  And  your  soldiers  are  fighting  well. 

"England  appreciates  the  unconquerable  tenacity 
which  the  brave  Italian  troops  are  showing,  and  hopes 
soon  to  congratulate  them  on  driving  the  enemy 
from  all  the  unredeemed  territory,  and  to  witness 
further  triumphs  of  their  gallantry  on  behalf  of  the 
Allies. 

QUESTION  OF  FREIGHTS 

"We  always  were  true  friends  of  Italy,  since  the 
Garibaldian  days — and  now  those  days  have  come 
back  again  to  you  with  the  old  glory.  What  I  say  of 
the  country  I  may  say  of  the  Government.  Our  re- 
lations are  excellent.  There  may  be  occasionally 
incidents  and  misunderstandings,  but  there  never  was 
and  there  never  will  be  any  ill  will  on  our  side. 

"Now,  for  instance,  I  know  you  have  difficulties 
and  misgivings  as  to  the  question  of  freights.  But  as 


WHY  THE  ALLIES  WILL  WIN          195 

to  that  you  cannot  blame  either  the  Government  or 
the  nation  as  a  whole.  Why,  we  are  experiencing  the 
same  difficulties  and  hardships  ourselves.  The  rise  in 
freights  is  a  natural,  though  deplorable,  consequence 
of  the  situation.  There  is  a  great  scarcity  of  avail- 
able ships  of  all  countries,  and  this  scarcity  is  bound  to 
react  on  the  freights. 

"However,  something  must  be  done,  and  will  be 
done,  even  now,  and  you  may  be  sure  that  within 
reasonable  limits  our  Government  will  do  all  that  is 
within  its  power  to  better  things,  also  to  the  advan- 
tage of  Italy." 

At  this  point  the  conversation  turned  from  Italy  to 
Great  Britain,  and  I  asked  Mr.  Lloyd  George  whether 
he  was  pleased  with  the  progress  of  munition  work. 

"Yes,"  he  said.  "We  woke  up  slowly  to  it.  But 
I  am  now  perfectly  satisfied  with  what  we  are  doing. 

PATRIOTIC   MINERS 

"We  have  now  2,500  factories,  employing  one  and  a 
half  million  men,  and  a  quarter  of  a  million  women. 
We  have  adapted  old  plants  and  established  new 
ones  on  modern  lines.  We  are  not  only  satisfying  the 
requirements  of  our  own  army,  but  we  are  also  supply- 
ing our  allies,  particularly  Russia.  One  cannot  have 
an  idea  of  the  tremendous  work  going  on  in  Britain 
just  now  unless  one  can  see  it. 

"Some  French  journalists  and  politicians  have 
come  over  here  to  inspect  our  factories,  and  they  have 
been  greatly  impressed  by  what  they  have  seen.  We 
expect  soon  a  party  of  Russians  for  the  same  purpose. 
I  hope  the  Italians,  too,  will  visit  us.  They  would  see 


196          WHY  THE  ALLIES  WILL  WIN 

with  their  own  eyes,  they  would  come  in  contact 
with  us,  and  would  form  a  better  idea  of  how  things 
are  going  on  in  Britain,  and  I  am  sure  that  many  mis- 
conceptions and  misapprehensions  would  thus  be  dissi- 
pated, to  our  common  advantage." 

"What  people  in  Italy  do  not  understand,"  I  said, 
"is  why  the  trade  unions  did  not  accept  the  modifica- 
tion of  their  rules  as  purely  a  measure  for  the  war 
only." 

Mr.  Lloyd  George  said:  "Naturally  the  great  trade 
unions  are  jealous  of  their  rights  and  customs.  It  was 
through  them  that  the  British  workmen  have  won 
their  industrial  birthright  and  their  liberties  which 
they  enjoy  as  workers;  the  wages  they  receive  and  the 
regulation  of  hours  are  the  outcome  of  organized 
effort." 

He  counselled  me  not  to  be  alarmed  about  the  res- 
olution of  the  miners.  "The  miners,"  he  said,  "are 
among  the  toughest  fighters  in  the  British  army,  and 
so  many  were  eager  to  enlist  that  we  had  to  stop  them." 

The  Minister  of  Munitions'  son,  by  the  way,  Major 
Richard  Lloyd  George,  is  in  a  regiment  composed 
almost  entirely  of  South  Wales  miners.  Mr.  Lloyd 
George's  second  son,  Lieutenant  Gwilym  Lloyd  George, 
is  in  the  same  division. 

"Our  voluntary  army,"  said  Mr.  Lloyd  George, 
"exceeds  3,000,000,  and  the  men  now  being  trained 
and  going  to  the  front  are  the  flower  of  the  nation's 
manhood.  They  are  the  classes  between  nineteen  and 
thirty  years  of  age,  who  are  largely  exhausted  in  the 
armies  of  the  enemy.  They  are  just  coming  on  "with 
us,  and  they  are  splendid  material. 


WHY  THE  ALLIES  WILL  WIN          197 

"I  am  absolutely  confident,"  declared  Mr.  Lloyd 
George. 

"But  on  what  ground  do  you  base  your  confi- 
dence?" 

"First  of  all,  on  the  fact  that  now  the  Allies  are  at 
last  taking  counsel  together.  We  have  made  mis- 
takes in  the  past,  all  of  us,  and  we  all  suffered  alike. 
We  were  acting  independently  from  one  another. 
Great  Britain  was  waging  her  war.  So  were  France, 
Russia,  and  Italy.  Only  lately  we  have  steered  a 
better  course. 

WHAT   UNION   MEANS 

"There  is  now,  through  the  councils  we  have  formed, 
a  constant  exchange  of  views  between  the  Allies,  and 
all-important  decisions  are  taken  by  common  accord. 
The  relations  between  Great  Britain  and  France 
are  perfectly  harmonious.  Italy,  too,  is  united  in  our 
councils.  My  friend,  M.  Thomas,  the  French  Under- 
secretary of  State  for  Munitions,  has  just  suggested 
to  me  that  our  next  meeting  should  take  place  in  Rome, 
or  in  some  other  Italian  city.  I  should  be  delighted 
at  that  if  time  and  distance  permitted.  Now  you  know 
what  union  means.  But  we  are  and  shall  be  stronger, 
not  only  because  we  are  united,  but  also  because  we 
shall  have  really  more  men  and  more  munitions,  and 
this  is  the  second  fact  on  which  I  base  my  confidence. 

"By  next  spring  we  shall  have  turned  out  an  im- 
mense amount  of  munitions.  We  shall  have  for  the 
first  time  in  the  war  more  than  the  enemy.  Our  supe- 
riority in  men  and  materials  will  be  unquestioned,  and 
I  think  the  war  for  us  is  beginning  only  now. 


198  WHY  THE  ALLIES  WILL  WIN 

"We  were  all  caught  unprepared.  The  French, 
Russians,  and  Italians  had  to  organize  their  armies. 
We  had  to  create  a  new  one.  We  have  now  three 
millions  under  arms;  by  the  spring  we  shall  have  a 
million  more.  You  have  seen  our  soldiers.  They  are 
strong,  fit,  and  well  equipped." 

'Yes,*'  I  said,  "I  was  really  struck  by  their  appear- 
ance.    But  what  about  officers?" 


GERMANY'S  LOSSES 


"We  have  made  them.  Young  men  from  public 
schools  and  universities  do  not  take  long  to  learn. 
They  are  not  professional.  But  are  there  many  pro- 
fessional officers  left  anywhere?  I  am  afraid  that  a 
great  many  of  them  have  been  killed.  Germany,  too, 
cannot  be  well  off  by  this  time  as  to  professional 
officers,  and  not  only  as  to  that. 

"Her  economic  and  financial  conditions  are  getting 
worse  every  day.  And  that  is  the  third  fact  on  which 
I  base  my  confidence.  The  riots  in  Berlin  and  other 
cities  must  mean  something.  She  can  still  import 
things,  but  not  on  a  scale  to  enable  her  to  go  on  success- 
fully for  a  long  period.  The  army  will  be  the  last  to 
feel  the  distress  in  Germany,  but  it,  too,  will  feel  it." 

"Do  you  think,"  I  asked,  "there  is  any  danger  of 
the  war  ending  in  a  military  deadlock?" 

"That  would  not  be  the  end,"  he  replied;  "the  vic- 
tory must  be  a  real  and  a  final  victory.  The  long  line, 
extending  to  2,000  miles,  held  by  the  enemy  must 
be  broken.  You  must  not  think  of  a  deadlock.  You 
must  crack  the  nut  before  you  get  at  the  kernel.  It 
may  take  a  long  time,  but  you  must  hear  the  crack. 


WHY  THE  ALLIES  WILL  WIN  199 

"Wearing  down  the  outside  by  attrition  is  too  long, 
and  would  not  be  a  smashing  and  pulverizing  victory. 
The  pressure  on  the  enemy  is  becoming  greater;  they 
are  spreading  their  frontiers  temporarily,  but  they  are 
becoming  weaker  in  a  military  sense.  The  process 
of  strangulation  is  going  on,  and  will  squeeze  more  and 
more  the  material  resources  of  the  enemy. 

"This  is  a  war  of  democracy,"  continued  Mr.  Lloyd 
George.  "If  it  were  not  a  war  of  democracy  I  would 
not  be  in  it.  I  was  against  the  last  war  in  which  Great 
Britain  was  engaged,  but  on  this  occasion  the  whole 
future  of  democracy — in  Britain,  France,  Russia, 
Italy,  all  over  the  world — is  involved.  It  is  a  final 
test  between  military  autocracy  and  political  liberty. 

"It  is  a  grim  struggle,  but  we  are  going  to  win;  of 
that  I  am  quite  confident.  The  enemy  has  gone  be- 
yond the  height  of  his  power,  and  is  on  the  down 
grade.  We  and  our  allies  are  gaining  strength  every 
day.  The  Central  Empires  have  lost  their  oppor- 
tunity of  victory,  and  they  know  it. 

"Our  whole  country  is  united  on  the  war.  If  there 
were  an  election  now  there  would  not  be  one  member 
returned  who  is  against  the  war.  I  do  not  foresee 
any  difficulty  with  regard  to  compulsion. 

"No  fewer  than  six  millions  have  offered  themselves 
for  the  Army.  Some  were  unfit,  many  were  required 
for  munition  works,  for  railways,  for  mines — national 
work  which  is  just  as  essential  as  services  in  the  field. 
The  number  who  would  come  under  compulsion  was 
at  the  most  320,000,  and  that  number  is  diminishing 
every  day  by  enlistment. 

"Make    no    mistake    about    it.     Great    Britain    is 


200          WHY  THE  ALLIES  WILL  WIN 

determined  to  fight  this  war  to  a  finish.  We  may  make 
mistakes,  but  we  do  not  give  in.  It  was  the  obstinacy 
of  Britain  that  wore  down  Napoleon  after  twenty 
years  of  warfare.  Allies  broke  away  one  by  one,  but 
Britain  kept  on.  Our  allies  on  this  occasion  are  just 
as  solid  and  determined  as  we  are." 


XI 

THE    GERMAN    WHITE    BOOK    ON 
THE   WAR  IN   BELGIUM 

A    Commentary 
By  PROFESSOR  A.  A.  H.  STRUYCKEN. 


XI 

THE  GERMAN  WHITE   BOOK  ON  THE  WAR 
IN  BELGIUM 

The  articles  here  translated  originally  appeared  in 
"  Van  Onzen  Tijd"  (Amsterdam)  on  31st  July,  7th  August, 
Hth  August,  and  21st  August,  1915. 


TRANSLATOR'S  PREFACE 


THE  charges  made  against  the  German  army 
of  misconduct  at  the  time  of  the  invasion  of 
Belgium  during  the  months  of  August  and 
September,  1914,  which  have  occupied  so  large  a 
place  in  the  public  press,  received  official  confirmation 
in  the  reports  of  the  Belgian  Committee.  ("La  Viola- 
tion du  Droit  des  Gens  en  Belgique,"  Berger-Levrault, 
Paris,  and  Libraires-Editeurs,  Nancy.  An  English 
translation  has  been  published  as  a  Parliamentary 
Paper:  "Reports  on  the  Violation  of  the  Rights  of 
Nations  and  of  the  Laws  and  Customs  of  War  in  Bel- 
gium," Harrison  and  Sons,  London.)  This  has  been 
supplemented  by  the  important  evidence  collected 
in  this  country  among  the  Belgian  refugees,  and  pub- 
lished as  the  report  of  the  Commission  on  Alleged 
German  Outrages. 

Charges  of  this  kind  when  made  officially  by  the 
Government  of  the  country  could  not  be   ignored   or 

203 


204  THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

left  unanswered,  and  in  May,  1915,  the  German  Govern- 
ment, which  had  hitherto  confined  itself  to  vague  and 
general  repudiation  of  the  accusations,  published  their 
official  reply.*  Those  who  wish  to  investigate  one 
of  the  most  lamentable  episodes  in  the  whole  history  of 
war  are  therefore  now  able  to  compare  the  case  for 
what  we  may  call  the  prosecution  and  the  defence. 
But  this  comparison  requires  a  trained  legal  mind, 
it  can  only  be  made  by  one  who  is  accustomed  to  weigh, 
analyze,  and  test  evidence.  It  is  a  comparison  which, 
moreover,  can  be  better  undertaken  by  the  citizen  of 
a  neutral  State  than  by  one  whose  country  is  a  partic- 
ipant in  the  war.  This  is  the  task  which  Professor 
Struycken  has  undertaken.  No  one  could  be  better 
suited  for  the  work.  For  many  years  a  distinguished 
professor  in  the  faculty  of  law  at  the  University  of 
Amsterdam,  and  now  a  member  of  the  Council  of 
State,  he  belongs  to  a  country  which  has  from  the  time 
of  Grotius  associated  itself  with  the  effort  to  bring 
international  relations  and  the  conduct  of  war  under 
the  influence  of  law  and  justice.  In  the  following 
pages  he  has  submitted  the  German  case  to  a  close 
investigation;  it  is  a  work  that  deserves  to  be  more 
widely  known  than  it  could  be  so  long  as  it  was  ac- 
cessible only  in  the  Dutch  magazine  in  which  it 
originally  appeared,  and  this  translation  has  been 
issued  in  the  belief  that  it  will  be  of  material  assist- 
ance to  those  English-speaking  readers  who  would 
desire  to  understand  the  nature  of  the  defence  put  f or- 


*It  should  be  noted  that  the  report  of  the  English  Commission  did  not  appear 
till  after  the  publication  of  the  German  White  Book,  which,  therefore,  contains  no 
reference  to  it. 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK  205 

ward  by  the  German  Government  against  the  charges 
brought  against  the  German  army. 

1. OBJECTS    OF    THE    WHITE     BOOK,     AND     THE    LEGAL 

POSITION 

THE  Governments  of  the  belligerent  States 
continue  zealously  to  collect  and  publish  ma- 
terial with  regard  to  the  manner  in  which  the 
war  has  been  conducted  by  their  enemies;  and  appar- 
ently, so  far  as  the  rules  of  law  and  humanity  are 
concerned,  importance  is  still  attached  to  the  opinion 
of  the  great  public.  To  a  particular  degree,  attention 
continues  to  be  focussed  on  the  question  of  the  respec- 
tive behaviour  of  the  German  armies  and  the  civilian 
inhabitants  in  Belgium  in  the  first  months  of  the 
war.  For  many  people  the  reports  on  these  points 
were  decisive  in  determining  the  side  to  which  their 
sympathies  were  to  be  attached  during  the  war,  and 
perhaps  after  it,  too.  The  Belgian  Official  Committee 
of  Inquiry  has  already  published  many  batches  of  de- 
positions to  prove  that  German  troops  conducted  the 
war  in  a  needlessly  cruel  manner,  destroying  the  lives, 
honour,  and  property  of  innumerable  defenceless  civil- 
ians, and  many  of  the  scientific  and  artistic  monuments 
of  the  Belgian  people.  The  German  Government  has 
now  replied  to  this  in  an  impresive  folio  of  more  than 
325  pages  bearing  the  title  "Die  Volkerrechtswidrige 
Flihrung  des  belgischen  Volkskrieges"  (Offences  against 
international  law  in  the  conduct  of  the  war  by  the 
Belgians),  consisting  of  an  extensive  collection  of  evi- 
dence, mostly  on  oath,  which  is  intended  to  prove  that 
the  numerous  executions,  burnings,  and  acts  of  devasta- 


206  THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

tion  carried  out  by  the  German  troops  in  Belgium  were 
a  Kriegsnotwendigkeit  (necessity  of  war),  necessary  as 
a  deterrent  in  view  of  the  treacherous  and  criminal 
behaviour  of  the  civil  population,  which,  both  at  the 
time  of  and  after  the  invasion,  transgressed  against  all 
rules  of  law  and  humanity. 

It  is  clear  that,  owing  to  the  failure  to  entrust 
the  investigations  to  neutral  commissions,  we  must 
despair  of  ever  learning  the  whole  truth  with  regard 
to  what  happened  in  Belgium  in  August  and  September 
of  last  year.  The  evidence  collected  is  already  exten- 
sive enough,  but  is  in  many  respects  contradictory, 
and  each  side  pours  contempt  on  the  investigations  of 
their  antagonists  and  on  the  trustworthiness  of  the 
witnesses  examined  by  them.  It  would  be  rash,  how- 
ever, to  infer  from  this  that  all  neutral  investigation 
is  superfluous,  and  that  the  study  of  the  atrocity  books 
published  on  either  side  is  a  waste  of  time.  On  the 
contrary  the  impartial  looker-on  may  find  much  that 
has  already  been  definitely  established  and  which  will 
go  down  as  historical  truth  whatever  the  end  of  the 
war  may  be;  and,  if  we  are  not  mistaken,  the  above- 
mentioned  publication  of  the  German  Government 
will,  in  many  respects,  give  considerable  assistance 
in  forming  a  true  view  of  the  attitude  adopted  by 
the  German  troops  toward  the  population. 

This  book  is  entirely  different  in  character  from 
the  reports  of  the  Belgian,  French,  and  English  Com- 
missions. The  latter  purport  to  be  indictments  of 
the  German  army,  and  with  that  in  view  present  in 
an  almost  monotonous  and  unbroken  series  the  dec- 
larations of  victims  and  witnesses  of  German  out- 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK  207 

rages.  The  German  book,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a 
defence,  not  designed  primarily  to  deny  the  outrages 
which  are  the  subject  of  this  charge — to  some  extent 
they  are  described  therein  in  all  their  details — but  to 
justify  them  in  the  very  words  of  those  actually  re- 
sponsible. In  it  are  given  the  statements  of  the  officers 
and  soldiers  who  took  part  in  the  proceedings  against 
the  Belgian  civil  population.  The  book,  therefore, 
enables  one  to  obtain  insight  into  the  state  of  mind  in 
which  officers  and  soldiers  ordered  and  carried  out  the 
innumerable  executions  and  acts  of  destruction  which 
took  place.  We  learn,  from  their  own  mouths,  how 
the  troops  conceived  their  attitude  to  the  inhabitants 
to  be  justifiable  according  to  the  law  of  nations,  on 
what  grounds  they  thought  themselves  entitled  to 
carry  out  their  cruel  deeds,  what  evidence  they  regarded 
as  sufficient  to  establish  the  so  severely  punished 
offences  of  the  citizens,  what  relation  they  established 
between  punishment  and  crime,  and  what  procedure 
was  followed  for  the  ascertainment  of  guilt  or  innocence. 
So  regarded,  this  book  offers  interesting  material 
for  the  investigation  of  the  criminologist,  moralist, 
and  psychologist.  Here  we  can  only  make  a  few 
general  observations  presenting  themselves  on  a  first 
perusal. 

The  work  opens  with  a  "  Denkschrif  t "  (memorandum) 
by  the  German  Government  which  can  be  regarded  as 
a  summary  of  the  conclusions  drawn  by  them  from 
the  evidence  in  the  Appendices.  In  the  eyes  of  the 
German  Government  it  is  an  established  fact  that  a 
wilder  Volkskampf  (savage  people's  war),  against  the 
German  army,  broke  out  in  Belgium  immediately 


208  THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

after  the  invasion,  and  that  this  must  be  regarded  as  a 
flagrant  violation  of  the  law  of  nations.  Civilians  of 
every  station  in  life — workmen,  manufacturers,  doc- 
tors, teachers,  priests,  women,  and  children — were 
taken  with  weapons  in  their  hands.  From  houses 
and  gardens,  from  roofs  and  cellars,  from  fields  and 
woods,  civilians  fired  upon  the  German  troops;  the 
soldiers  were  exposed  to  a  most  despicable  ill-treat- 
ment; hot  tar  and  boiling  water  were  poured  upon  them; 
eyes  were  gouged  out,  ears,  nose,  and  fingers  were 
cut  off,  bellies  cut  open,  &c.,  &c.;  all  this  following 
on  an  apparently  friendly  reception  on  the  part  of 
the  inhabitants. 

In  face  of  this  the  German  army  was  not  only  justified 
in  taking,  but  obliged  to  take,  the  severest  measures 
(scharf sten  Massnahmen) ;  the  guilty  had  to  be  treated 
not  as  soldiers  and  prisoners  of  war,  but  as  criminals 
and  murderers;  the  innocent  had  to  suffer  with  the 
guilty,  hostages  were  taken  in  great  numbers  to  be 
killed  if  necessary  as  a  deterrent,  houses  had  to  be 
burned  down,  villages  and  towns  devastated,  &c. 

In  forming  a  judgment  on  all  this,  the  German 
Government  takes  up  the  standpoint  that  its  troops 
as  well  as  the  Belgian  population  were  subject  to 
The  Hague  Convention  of  1907  as  to  the  laws  of  war. 
It  therefore  makes  no  use  of  the  formally  correct 
excuse,  first  made  by  Professor  F.  R.  von  Liszt,  that 
since  States  have  come  into  this  war  which  did  not 
accept  that  convention,  it  is,  according  to  its  own 
rules,  not  binding  upon  any  party.  Indeed,  whether 
this  excuse  is  relied  upon  or  not,  it  makes  little  dif- 
ference to  the  consideration  of  the  behaviour  of  the 


' 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK  209 

army  toward  the  civilian  population,  for  this  would  in 
that  case  be  regulated  by  the  convention  of  1899  which 
was  signed  by  all  States,  and  contains  the  same  rules  on 
this  subject  as  that  of  1907.*  In  accordance,  there1 
fore,  with  article  2  of  the  convention,  the  German  Gov- 
ernment distinguishes  between  fighting  by  the  in- 
habitants in  territory  already  occupied  by  the  troops 
(as  in  Aerschot,  Andenne,  and  Lou  vain),  in  which  the 
unorganized  population  taking  part  in  hostilities  can 
never,  according  to  the  laws  of  nations,  claim  to  be 
treated  as  combatants — that  is  as  soldiers — and  the 
forcible  resistance  of  the  population  to  the  invading 
troops  in  territory  hitherto  unoccupied  as  in  the  fron- 
tier places  and  in  Dinant  and  its  neighbourhood, 
where  the  unorganized  population,  provided  that  they 
carry  arms  openly  and  respect  the  laws  and  customs  of 
war,  must,  according  to  the  convention,  be  regarded 
as  combatants,  if  on  the  approach  of  the  enemy  they 
take  up  arms  spontaneously  to  resist  the  invading 
troops,  without  having  had  time  to  organize  themselves. 
A  perusal  of  the  evidence  of  the  various  witnesses, 
however,  fails  to  show  that  the  officers  ever  took  this 
legal  distinction  into  account,  or  even  that  it  was 
present  to  their  minds.  Civilians  supposed  to  have 
taken  part  in  the  fighting  were  never  treated  as  sol- 
diers, but  always  as  criminals.  One  is  inclined  to  seek 
the  reason  for  this  in  the  circumstance  that  the  book 
"  Kriegsbrauch  in  Landkriege"  (i.  e.9  the  German 
War  Book)  by  means  of  which  the  officers  are  educated 


*  The  Convention  of  1899  is  rather  more  favourable  to  the  civilian  population 
in  so  far  as  it  does  not,  like  that  of  1907,  require  that  they  should  carry  weapons 
openly  if  they  are  to  be  regarded  as  combatants. 


210  THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

in  the  law  of  nations,  does  not  make  this  distinction, 
or  rather,  bearing  in  mind  what  was  settled  at  The 
Hague,  rejects  it,  requiring  that,  in  all  cases,  in  all 
hostilities  in  which  the  people  take  part,  there  should 
be  a  military  organization  and  military  emblems  openly 
worn. 

The  passage  runs  as  follows:  "But  the  organiza- 
tion of  irregulars  in  military  bands  and  their  subjection 
to  a  responsible  leader  are  not  by  themselves  sufficient 
to  enable  one  to  grant  them  the  status  of  belligerents; 
even  more  important  than  these  is  the  necessity  of 
being  able  to  recognize  them  as  such  and  of  their 
carrying  their  arms  openly.  .  .  . 

"This  condition  must  also  be  maintained  if  it 
becomes  a  question  of  the  levee  en  masse,  the  arming 
of  the  whole  population  of  the  country,  province,  or 
district;  in  other  words  the  so-called  people's  war  or 
national  war.  Starting  from  the  view  that  one  can 
never  deny  to  the  population  of  a  country  the  natural 
right  of  defence  of  one's  fatherland,  and  that  the 
smaller  and  consequently  less  powerful  States  can 
only  find  protection  in  such  levees  en  masse,  the  major- 
ity of  authorities  on  international  law  have,  in  their 
proposals  for  codification,  sought  to  attain  the  recogni- 
tion on  principle  of  the  combatant  status  of  all  these 
kinds  of  people's  champions,  and  in  the  Brussels 
declaration  and  The  Hague  Regulations  the  aforesaid 
condition  is  omitted.  As  against  this  one  may  never- 
theless remark  that  the  condition  requiring  a  military 
organization  and  a  clearly  recognizable  mark  of  being 
attached  to  the  enemy's  troops,  is  not  synonymous 
with  a  denial  of  the  natural  right  of  defence  of  one's 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

country.  It  is  therefore  not  a  question  of  restraining 
the  population  from  seizing  arms  but  only  of  com- 
pelling it  to  do  this  in  an  organized  manner.  'Sub- 
jection to  a  responsible  leader,  a  military  organization, 
and  clear  recognizability  cannot  be  left  out  of  account 
unless  the  whole  recognized  foundation  for  the  ad- 
mission of  irregulars  is  going  to  be  given  up  altogether 
and  a  conflict  of  one  private  individual  against  another 
is  to  be  introduced  again,  with  all  its  attendant  horrors, 
of  which,  for  example,  the  proceedings  in  Bazeilles 
in  the  last  Franco-Prussian  War  affords  an  instance. 
If  the  necessary  organization  does  not  really  become 
established — a  case  which  is  by  no  means  likely  to  occur 
often — then  nothing  remains  but  a  conflict  of  individ- 
uals, and  those  who  conduct  it  cannot  claim  the  rights 
of  an  active  military  status.  The  disadvantages  and 
severities  inherent  in  such  a  state  of  affairs  are  more 
insignificant  and  less  inhuman  than  those  which 
would  result  from  recognition.'  (Professor  Dr.  C. 
Luder,  Das  Landkriegsrecht,  Hamburg,  1888.)  "*  The 
German  Government,  however,  gives  another  reason 
why  the  troops  in  unoccupied  territories  must  treat 
resisting  inhabitants  in  the  same  manner  as  in  occupied 
territories,  that  is,  as  criminals.  Listen  to  this: 
"But  the  unorganized  people's  war  was  also  imper- 
missible in  those  places  which  had  not  yet  been  occupied 
by  German  troops,  and  particularly  in  Dinant  and  the 
neighbourhood,  as  the  Belgian  Government  had  suf- 
ficient time  for  an  organization  of  the  people's  war  as 
required  by  international  law.  For  years  the  Belgian 

*  Translator's  Note.     The  version  of  the  passage  from  German  War  Book  here 
given  is  from  Professor  Morgan's  translation,  pp.  62-63. 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

Government  has  had  under  consideration  that  at  the 
outbreak  of  a  Franco-German  war  it  would  be  involved 
in  the  operations;  the  preparation  of  mobilization 
began,  as  can  be  proved,  at  least  a  week  before  the 
invasion  of  the  German  army.  The  Government 
was,  therefore,  completely  in  a  position  to  provide 
the  civil  population  with  military  badges  and  appoint 
responsible  leaders,  so  far  as  they  wished  to  use 
their  services  in  any  fighting  which  might  take 
place." 

One  has  some  reason  to  be  astonished  at  such  scorn- 
ful remarks  addressed  to  the  Belgian  Government  by  a 
Government  which  was  a  co-guarantor  of  Belgian 
neutrality,  and  had  repeatedly  in  recent  times,  before 
the  invasion,  given  the  assurance  that  this  would  be 
respected.  In  any  case,  it  reveals  a  misunderstandng 
as  regards  the  aims  of  The  Hague  Convention.  In 
the  first  place  it  by  no  means  follows  from  Article  2 
of  the  convention  that  the  population  taking  up  arms 
without  fulfilling  the  conditions  contained  therein  is 
acting  in  conflict  with  the  law  of  nations,  and  at  the 
Conference  at  Brussels  and  at  the  first  Peace  Confer- 
ence it  was  precisely  the  Belgian  delegates  who  took 
the  lead  in  obviating  the  possibility  that  any  such 
inference  should  be  drawn  from  the  convention.  Armed 
resistance  not  in  accordance  with  The  Hague  Conven- 
tion does  not  enjoy  the  protection  of  the  law  of  the 
nations;  those  who  take  part  in  it  have  not  the  right 
to  be  regarded  as  soldiers,  but  it  does  not  by  any 
means  follow  that  their  actions  are  to  be  regarded  as 
in  conflict  with  the  law.  In  the  second  place,  it  is 
not  a  question  whether  the  Belgian  Government  was  in 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK  213 

a  position  to  organize  civilian  population  for  warlike 
purposes — this  Government  did  not  desire  it.  No, 
the  convention  is  designed  to  protect  the  population 
in  places  where  they  have,  on  their  own  initiative, 
taken  up  arms  to  repel  the  enemy,  and  therefore 
the  question  that  must  be  put  is  whether  the  popula- 
tion had  had  sufficient  time  to  give  themselves  a  mili- 
tary organization.  If  one  is  to  assume  that,  in  the 
given  circumstances,  the  population  in  the  Belgian 
frontier  villages  and  Dinant  had,  in  fact,  sufficient  time 
for  this,  one  can  without  hesitation  strike  out  the  pro- 
visions of  Article  2  of  the  convention  on  the  ground  that 
they  are  never  applicable. 

However  that  may  be,  whether  because  they  had 
never  been  taught  anything  else,  or  because  the  ex- 
planation of  the  convention  now  given  by  the  German 
Government  was  then  before  them,  the  German  officers 
had  no  hesitation  in  applying  the  same  methods  both 
to  occupied  and  unoccupied  territories  whenever  they 
imagined  themselves  to  be  confronted  by  forcible 
resistance  on  the  part  of  the  civilian  inhabitants. 
What  that  meant  may  be  illustrated  by  the  events  at 
Dinant,  as  given  in  the  German  White  Book. 

On  the  23d  August  Dinant  was  stormed  by  the 
German  troops.  They  were  under  the  impression 
that  the  part  of  the  town  lying  on  the  right-hand 
side  of  the  Meuse  had  already  been  evacuated  by 
the  Belgian  troops.  As  they  entered  they  were 
in  fact  fired  upon  from  all  sides,  and,  as  they  thought, 
out  of  the  houses.  In  the  conviction  that  the  civilian 
inhabitants  were  responsible  for  this,  house  after  house 
was  stormed  and  cleared  of  inhabitants.  As  it  ap- 


214  THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

peared  impossible  to  obtain  control  of  the  town  in  this 
way  it  was  then  destroyed  by  artillery. 

What  had  now  to  be  the  fate  of  the  civilian  in- 
habitants who — in  the  opinion  of  the  German  troops 
—had  offered  forcible  resistance?  On  the  23d  August, 
even  according  to  the  judgment  of  the  German  Govern- 
ment, the  town  did  not  form  part  of  the  occupied 
territory.  The  population,  so  the  German  troops  were 
convinced,  had  organized  armed  resistance,  and  had 
taken  up  arms  on  their  own  initiative  to  resist  the 
invading  troops.  That  the  latter,  in  this  belief, 
stormed  the  houses  in  order  to  overcome  the  resistance, 
is  clear.  Had  they  met  with  armed  resistance  in  the 
course  of  this,  and  repelled  it  by  force,  the  victims 
thereof  would  have  had  nothing  to  complain  of.  But 
— by  hundreds  and  hundreds,  men,  women,  and  chil- 
dren, were  taken  prisoners  in  the  houses,  on  suspicion 
of  having  fired.  What  was  their  fate  to  be?  If  they 
fell  under  the  protection  of  Article  2  of  the  convention 
they  should  have  been  treated  as  combatants,  as 
soldiers,  i.  e.9  they  should  have  been  made  prisoners  of 
war  and  in  accordance  with  Article  4  of  the  convention, 
have  been  treated  with  humanity.  What  happened 
to  them?  They  were  all  "niedergemacht"  (slaughtered). 
How?  One  deposition  out  of  many,  that  of  "stab- 
sarzt"  (staff -surgeon)  Dr.  Petrenz,  shows  how.  He 
tells  us  of  his  experiences  on  the  morning  of  the  24th 
August,  the  day  after  the  assault :—"  On  the  bank 
of  the  Meuse  between  the  river  and  a  garden  wall 
directly  to  the  left  of  the  pontoon  bridge  lay  a  heap 
of  civilians  who  had  been  shot;  I  do  not  know  how 
many,  I  estimate  about  thirty  to  forty.  I  do  not 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK  215 

know  who  had  shot  them.  I  have  heard  that  the 
Grenadier  Regiment  No.  101  carried  out  an  execu- 
tion there.  Among  the  people  who  were  shot  were 
some  women,  but  by  far  the  greater  number  were  young 
lads.  Under  the  heap  I  discovered  a  girl  of  about  five 
years  of  age,  alive  and  without  any  injuries.  I  took  her 
out  and  brought  her  down  to  the  house  where  the 
women  were.  She  took  chocolate,  was  quite  happy, 
and  was  clearly  unaware  of  the  seriousness  of  the 
-situation.  I  then  searched  the  heap  of  bodies  to  see 
whether  any  other  children  were  underneath.  But 
we  only  found  one  girl  of  about  ten  years  of  age  who  had 
a  wound  in  the  lower  leg.  I  had  her  wound  dressed  and 
brought  her  at  once  to  the  women." 

II. — THE   PUBLISHED   EVIDENCE 

The  German  White  Book  consists  of  an  "Auslese" 
(selection)  from  the  comprehensive  material  at  the 
disposal  of  the  German  Government.  It  does  not  by 
any  means  deal  with  the  whole  course  of  the  war 
in  Belgium,  nor  with  the  long  series  of  charges  which 
have  been  made  against  the  German  troops  by  the 
Belgians.  It  merely  deals,  by  way  of  example,  with 
the  events  in  the  places  concerning  which  the  most 
serious  charges  have  been  made,  especially  the  frontier 
villages  and  Aerschot,  Andenne  Dinant  and  Louvain. 

In  what  spirit  has  this  "selection"  been  put  together? 
Has  the  collection  of  the  most  important  data  con- 
cerning the  various  events  been  made  in  an  impartial 
manner?  Or  have  all  the  documents  tending  to  in- 
culpate the  Germans  been  put  on  one  side  and  the 
choice  been  limited  to  the  reports  and  declarations 


216  THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

which,  it  was  hoped,  would  throw  a  favourable  light 
on  the  German  troops?  To  be  in  a  position  to  form  a 
considered  judgment  on  this  it  would  be  necessary  to 
know  the  unpublished  documents  as  well.  Never- 
theless, it  may  be  said  that  the  German  Government, 
however  much  it  may  assert  its  conviction  that  its 
troops  are  innocent,  at  any  rate  of  any  more  serious 
excesses  than  such  as  are  unavoidable  in  the  best  regu- 
lated armies  invading  an  enemy  country,  must,  in  the 
compilation  of  its  White  Book,  have  perceived  that 
its  perusal  was  not  likely  to  produce  the  same  convic- 
tion in  the  mind  of  every  reader.  In  one  respect, 
indeed,  impartiality  has  been  exhibited  by  Berlin, 
for  the  White  Book  is  by  no  means  limited  to  such 
declarations  as  place  beyond  doubt  the  guilt  of  the 
civilian  inhabitants,  and  the  right  of  the  troops  to 
take  forcible  steps  against  them;  on  the  other  hand, 
however,  a  one-sided  character  has  been  given  to  the 
published  material  by  excluding  from  it  important 
documents  which  are  indispensable  for  the  knowledge 
of  the  whole  truth.  With  regard  to  this  we  are 
not  referring  to  the  peculiar  fact  that  the  sworn 
depositions  are  almost  exclusively  those  of  Protestant 
witnesses,  and  only  in  exceptional  cases  those  of  Cath- 
olics— that  may  be  a  mere  coincidence — but  to  the 
fact  that  the  book  contains  none  of  the  numerous 
depositions  made  before  the  German  Commissioners 
of  Enquiry  in  the  occupied  territories  by  Belgian 
and  neutral  citizens,  although,  surely,  no  better  means 
could  have  been  chosen  to  establish  the  truth  than  to 
have  the  events  described  by  the  military  also  described 
and  explained  by  peaceful  citizens.  Only  two  such 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK  217 

reports  are  included,  and  it  is  not  apparent  why  pre- 
cisely these  two  have  been  chosen  out  of  the  many 
that  are  available. 

The  first  relates  to  the  examination  by  a  lieutenant 
of  the  Burgomaster  and  some  inhabitants  of  the  little 
town  of  Andenne,  where,  according  to  the  report,  200 
citizens  were  killed  on  the  20th  August.  The  witnesses 
examined,  who  indeed  were  nearly  all  prisoners,  or 
wounded,  or  hiding  in  their  cellars  on  the  day  in  ques- 
tion, have,  generally  speaking,  very  little  of  importance 
to  impart;  in  particular  none  of  them  support  the 
statement  of  the  Military  Commander  that  the  citizens 
had  fired,  and  had  used  machine-guns,  bombs,  and 
hand-grenades,  too.  With  regard  to  the  Burgomaster, 
the  report  indeed  says:  "He  only  knew  that  at  7 
p.  M.  on  the  20th  August  a  murderous  fire  was  opened 
on  our  troops  who  wished  to  cross  the  bridge  at  Seilles." 
But,  when  it  comes  to  the  point,  it  does  not  add  that 
he  declared  that  this  shooting  was  by  civilians.  The 
observation  of  the  manufacturer  Debrun  that  at  about 
7  o'clock  an  aeroplane  appeared  above  the  town, 
whereupon  the  German  troops  immediately  opened 
fire,  as  to  which  fact  nothing  is  found  in  the  military 
evidence,  is  the  only  one  which  is  worthy  of  remark. 
The  witness  adds  that  immediately  thereon  firing  com- 
menced in  all  parts  of  the  town.  Comparing  this 
statement  with  the  military  reports — only  two  of  these 
are  inserted — one  cannot  escape  the  inference  that 
the  shooting  at  the  airmen  by  some  of  the  troops 
was  thought  by  the  others  to  be  shooting  by  the 
civilian  inhabitants,  and  that  this  mistake  gave  oc- 
casion to  the  cruel  massacre.  When  one  thinks  of  the 


218  THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

bullets  fired  at  the  airmen  falling  to  earth  again  the 
complaint  of  shooting  from  "  Dachoffnungen"  (holes 
in  the  roof)  is  explained,  as  is  also  the  remark  of  the 
General:  "Wonderfully  enough  our  losses  were  slight; 
the  franctireurs  aimed  very  badly." 

The  other  report  is  of  the  examination  of  Professor 
Albert  Lemaire,  director  of  the  St.  Peter's  Hospital 
at  Lou  vain.  Why  his  statement  is  inserted  is  not  clear. 
He  expressly  says  that  he  did  not  see  "that  civilians 
fired  into  the  streets  from  the  houses."  On  the  other 
hand,  shots  were  repeatedly  fired  upon  himself  when 
he  went  into  the  garden  of  his  house  in  the  evening. 
That  this  was  done  by  Belgian  citizens  can  hardly  be 
supposed.  The  remainder  of  his  declaration — "Nearly 
all  the  houses  of  the  doctors  and  professors  in  Leopold 
Street  were  burned.  On  the  following  day  for  safety's 
sake  I  had  my  family  taken  to  the  hospital  by  two 
German  soldiers.  On  Thursday,  27th  August,  the 
bombardment  and  destruction  of  the  town  was  an- 
nounced. I  went  with  my  family  into  the  country. 
On  my  return  I  found  that  my  house  also  had  been 
burned  down" — does  not  assist  the  Germans  in  justify- 
ing their  conduct  in  Lou  vain. 

The  gap  caused  by  the  absence  of  depositions 
of  peaceful  Belgians  and  more  important  still,  of 
neutral  citizens,  must  be  filled,  if  the  White  Book 
is  to  be  entirely  convincing.  There  is  all  the  more 
reason  for  the  German  Government  to  do  this,  for  the 
fact  that  they  more  than  once  lay  stress  on  communi- 
cations and  expressions  of  opinion  from  such  quarters 
which  were  transmitted  to  the  Committee  of  Enquiry 
by  German  witnesses,  shows  that  they  themselves  ap- 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK  219 

parently  attach  great  importance  to  the  evidence  and 
opinion  of  these  citizens.  Such  a  reference,  for  in- 
stance, was  made  by  a  captain  of  cavalry  in  his  evidence 
with  regard  to  the  events  at  Aerschot.  He  had  picked 
out  the  "am  intelligentesten  Aussehenden"  (the  most 
intelligent  looking)  from  a  troop  of  civilian  prisoners 
—he  appeared  to  be  a  "  Seminarlehrer"  (seminary 
teacher) — and  informed  him  that  all  the  guilty  prison- 
ers should  be  shot  but  that  he  (the  captain)  would 
take  steps  to  save  the  professor's  life  provided  that  he 
would  betray  the  truth  with  regard  to  the  alleged  at- 
tack by  the  citizens,  whereupon  he  is  said  to  have  been 
told:  "that  it  was  a  great  mistake  on  the  part  of  the 
citizens  of  Aerschot  to  have  received  fugitive  Belgian 
soldiers,  kept  them  in  hiding  and  put  them  in  civilian 
clothes.  These  had  without  question  united  with 
the  Garde  Civique  and  an  attack  had  then  been  under- 
taken by  them."  What  would  it  not  be  worth  to 
have  the  statements  made  by  such  an  intelligent  wit- 
ness himself  before  a  judge,  under  oath,  not  as  a  ransom 
for  his  life  but  given  in  entire  freedom !  So  too,  Herr 
Sittart,  a  member  of  the  Reichstag,  who  makes  the 
following  remarkable  statement  under  oath:  "On  the 
31st  August  at  Louvain,  a  number  of  women  of  the 
town  complained  to  me  in  tears  of  the  trouble  which 
had  come  upon  them  owing  to  the  bombardment  of 
the  town.  They  expressly  admitted  that  our  troops 
had  been  fired  upon  from  houses  and  cellars.  One  of 
these,  a  widow  of  a  doctor,  said  indeed  that  those 
who  had  done  it  belonged  to  the  Garde  Civique.  When 
she  heard,  however,  that  in  Aix-la-Chapelle  there 
were  wounded  who  had  been  seriously  injured  by  small 


220  THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

shot,  she  had  to  admit  that  civilians  had  taken  part 
in  the  shooting  as  well.  She  agreed  with  me,  too,  when 
I  said  that  neither  the  Garde  Civique  nor  the  regular 
troops  deserve  any  consideration  when  they  fire  from 
an  ambush,  from  cellars  and  roofs  instead  of  in  open 
and  honourable  combat.  The  Vice-Rector  of  the 
University  of  Louvain,  Mgr.  Coenraets,  told  me  that 
he,  as  a  hostage,  had  been  ordered  to  read  a  proclama- 
tion to  the  people,  to  the  effect  that  the  hostages 
would  be  shot  and  the  town  bombarded  if  the  troops 
were  treacherously  fired  upon.  He  had  scarcely  read 
this  in  one  street  when  in  fact  shots  were  fired  upon 
the  German  soldiers  accompanying  him."  —How  much 
more  value  would  it  not  have  had  to  hear,  not  what  an 
unnamed  woman  had  "admitted"  to  a  member  of 
the  Reichstag,  not  what  an  unnamed  doctor's  widow 
had  finally  to  "admit"  to  him,  and  in  what  respect 
she  had  to  "agree"  with  his  view,  but  the  direct  evi- 
dence given  by  civilian  inhabitants  before  a  judge  con- 
cerning the  facts  that  they  had  observed.  And  so, 
further,  what  would  it  not  have  been  worth  to  hear 
directly  what  the  hostages  could  tell  us  with  regard  to 
the  shooting  of  which  they  were  witnesses,  and  whether 
they  really  observed  that  German  soldiers  were  fired 
upon  by  citizens  and  out  of  houses.  Various  professors 
of  the  University,  including  some  neutrals,  have  been 
examined  by  the  German  administration.  To  their 
direct  evidence  one  would  certainly  attach  more 
weight  than  to  the  hearsay  of  a  member  of  the  Reich- 
stag, who  had  not  been  himself  a  witness  of  the  in- 
cidents, though,  nevertheless,  he  had  not  been  able  to 
find  any  better  consolation  for  the  sorrowing  women  of 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

Louvain  than  to  use  them  for  the  purpose  of  obtruding 
his  opinion  that  the  guilt  lay  exclusively  at  the  doors 
of  their  husbands  and  children. 

III. — THE   NATURE   OF   THE   EVIDENCE 

In  considering  why  the  German  White  Book  has 
in  many  respects  so  little  convincing  power,  one 
discovers  the  chief  reason  in  the  fact  that  in  justify- 
ing the  cruel  punishments  administered  to  the  citizens 
of  Belgium  so  little  direct  evidence  with  regard  to 
events  observed  by  the  witnesses  themselves  has  been 
collected  or,  at  any  rate,  published.  What  we  have 
before  us  consists  far  too  much  of  suppositions,  guesses, 
assurances,  for  the  truth  of  which  no  satisfactory 
grounds  are  given.  It  is  inconceivable  that  the  persons 
charged  with  the  investigation — a  "  Kriegsgerichtsrat " 
or  "Oberkriegsgerichtsrat,"  sometimes  an  "Amtsrich- 
ter"  or  "  Oberamtsrichter" — could  have  been  satisfied 
with  it;  at  every  desposition  there  rises  to  the  lips  of  the 
reader  of  their  report  question  after  question,  the 
answer  to  which  appears  to  be  indispensable  to  the 
forming  of  a  correct  judgment,  but  which,  never- 
theless, were  not  put  to  the  witnesses.  One  would 
gladly  have  had  the  direct  evidence  of  many  of  the 
soldiers  concerned,  which,  being  that  of  eye-witnesses, 
would  have  the  greatest  importance — but  their  evi- 
dence is  not  found  in  the  White  Book.  The  possibility 
of  guilt  on  the  part  of  the  civilian  population  is  cer- 
tainly not  excluded,  but  the  fact  that  the  military  au- 
thorities in  Berlin  are  satisfied  with  this  method  of 
investigation,  and  apparently  regard  the  evidence  now 
published  as  satisfactory,  makes  us  shudder  at  the 


222  THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

thought  of  the  evidence  on  which,  in  the  confusion  of 
the  fighting,  in  the  witches'  cauldron  of  Dinant,  in 
burning  Aerschot  and  in  so  many  other  places  in  un- 
happy Belgium,  sentence  of  death  was  carried  out  on 
thousands  of  citizens  by  officers  and  by  soldiers  of 
lower  rank. 

"Man  hat  geschossen"  (there  has  been  firing),  was 
the  ordinary  signal  for  death  and  destruction.  One 
would  expect  to  find  in  this  dossier  abundant  and 
direct  proof  of  the  fact  that  civilians  had  fired;  in  such 
a  furious  contest  as  that  between  the  citizens  and  the 
army  would  have  been,  there  must  have  been  hun- 
dreds of  witnesses  available  who  observed  the  facts 
themselves.  Relatively  few  witnesses,  however,  are 
produced  who  make  a  direct  statement  on  this;  more- 
over, their  observation  frequently  took  place  under 
such  circumstances  as  to  magnify  the  chances  of  error: 
as  for  instance,  when  forms  were  seen  in  the  darkness, 
shooting  down  from  the  upper  storeys  of  houses,  or  out 
of  holes  in  the  roof,  or  out  of  trees,  or  firing  took 
place  from  cellars,  or  loopholes  near  the  ground, 
on  passing  soldiers,  &c.  With  regard  to  Andenne 
and  Aerschot  not  a  single  direct  statement  is  given. 
As  a  rule  the  charge  rests  on  hearsay  statements, 
or  on  suppositions,  such  as:  "firing  took  place  out 
of  the  houses,  shooting  from  cellar-holes  and  openings 
in  the  roof";  "the  sound  of  the  shot  was  not  that  of  a 
German  weapon";  "apparently  small  shot  was  fired"; 
"light  smoke  and  dust  clouds  rose  above  the  roof"; 
"there  were  no  further  Belgian  or  French  soldiers  in 
the  place";  or  "could  not  have  been  in  the  place," 
&c.,  &c.  If  one  takes  into  account  that  the  German 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK  223 

troops  lived  in  a  state  of  constant  fear  of  shooting  by 
civilians,  as  to  whose  treachery  and  cruelty  the  wildest 
rumours  were  in  circulation;  that  many  places  had 
only  very  recently  or  only  partly  been  evacuated  by 
the  Belgians  and  the  French;  that  German  soldiers 
were  frequently  billeted  in  the  houses;  that  a  single 
shot  and  the  rumour  that  it  was  fired  by  a  civilian 
instigated  the  soldiers  to  a  furious  bombardment 
of  the  houses  with  rifles  and  machine  guns,  which 
the  officers  were  often  unable  to  stop,  one  can  attach 
no  great  importance  to  such  evidence  even  though  it 
was  also  stated  that  "Es  waren  bestimmt  Zivilisten" 
(it  was  certainly  done  by  civilians),  and  one  must  still 
ask  for  direct  evidence. 

And  this  all  the  more  since  there  is  so  much,  in 
the  story  of  the  resistance  by  the  population,  to 
arouse  astonishment  and  compel  suspicion.  If  the 
stories  are  true,  the  Belgian  population  in  various 
places  has  made  an  incomprehensible  display  of 
insane  heroism.  Although  the  town  is  occupied  by 
the  Germans,  and  as  a  punishment  for  the  supposed 
firing  on  the  troops  is  set  on  fire  in  all  directions  and 
blown  to  ruins;  although  hundreds  of  citizens  are 
taken  prisoners  and  shot;  although  every  citizen  knows 
what  his  fate  will  be  if  the  merest  suspicion  arise  that 
his  house  has  been  fired  from;  nevertheless,  they 
continue,  day  after  day,  day  and  night — greybeard, 
men,  women,  priests,  children,  down  to  little  girls  of 
ten— without  hesitation,  to  fire  on  the  troops  as  they 
pass  by,  although  they  know  with  certainty  that  it  can 
only  lead  to  their  own  destruction.  But — and  the 
contrast  is  remarkable — whenever  the  houses  in  which 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

the  firing  took  place  are  stormed  and  the  soldiers 
force  their  way  in,  all  their  courage  appears  to  vanish: 
there  arises  no  hand-to-hand  fight  between  civilians 
and  soldiers  in  which  many  are  killed  on  either  side; 
no,  the  civilians  are  merely  "  niedergemacht "  (cut 
down),  or,  indeed,  defenceless  and  helpless,  taken 
prisoner  and  driven  along,  with  upraised  hands,  into 
the  market  place  or  square  to  meet  their  fate. 

And  how  bad  the  shooting  of  the  civilians  was! 
Various  officers  themselves  were  amazed  at  this;  the 
losses  of  the  Germans  were  always  very  small.  In  nar- 
row winding  streets  the  citizens  opened  fire  on  the 
troops  as  they  marched  past;  from  the  surrounding 
houses  they  fired  on  the  columns  which  were  halted 
on  the  square,  not  in  single  shots,  no,  a  "lebhaftes 
Schnellfeuer"  (lively  rapid  firing) — a  "sehr  heftiges 
(very  violent),  "kolossales"  "rasendes"  (furious),  "mor- 
derisches"  (murderous),  "wiitendes"  (fierce),  rifle  fire 
— a  "mad,"  "devastating"  "  Schieszerei"  (firing) — 
"es  krachte  von  alien  Seiten,  aus  alien  Hausern  wurde 
geschossen,  von  alien  Hangen  blitzte  es  auf "  (it  burst 
from  all  sides,  all  the  houses  were  fired  from,  it  flashed 
from  every  slope);  they  fired  with  pistols,  sporting 
guns,  rifles,  machine  guns,  bombs,  and  hand  grenades. 
One  would  have  expected  an  innumerable  list  of  vic- 
tims— but  hardly  any  are  heard  of.  In  some  places 
they  are  not  referred  to  at  all,  in  other  cases  only  few 
are  mentioned. 

The  Belgian  civilian  population  was  guilty  of  cruel 
outrages  on  German  wounded  and  therefore  deserved 
no  consideration.  As  an  example  one  might  instance 
the  fact,  which  has  attracted  much  attention  and 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

has  been  exploited  by  the  German  press  to  arouse 
hatred  against  the  Belgians  who  were  defending 
their  country,  and  which  also  occasioned  a  cry  of 
horror  from  many  neutrals — the  gouging  out  of  the 
eyes  of  the  wounded,  even  by  women  and  young  girls. 
The  White  Book  declares  this  fact  to  be  established, 
and  speaks  of  the  "  bestialische  Verhalten  der  Bevol- 
kerung"  (bestial  behaviour  of  the  population);  many 
neutrals  believed  it,  too.  One  refers  to  the  report 
expecting  to  find  the  depositions  of  doctors,  especially 
in  military  hospitals,  or  the  depositions  of  those  who 
themselves  had  been  maltreated,  and  nothing  of  the 
sort  is  to  be  found.  Has  no  single  wounded  or  dead 
man  whose  eyes  may  have  been  gouged  out,  been  ex- 
amined by  a  medical  man?  Has  no  single  one  of  the 
many  who  were  maltreated  survived  so  as  to  be  able 
to  give  evidence  of  his  maltreatment?  As  long  as 
such  evidence  is  not  published  it  cannot  seriously  be 
imagined  that  the  allegation  is  proved.  The  only 
evidence  is  that  of  about  eight  soldiers  and  an  officer 
that  they  saw  wounded  men  or  corpses  on  the  ground 
whose  eyes  had  been  gouged  out.  How  they  knew 
that  the  eyes  had  been  gouged  out  and  not  destroyed  by 
shell  splinters,  by  birds  of  prey,  or  by  decay,  is  not 
stated.  A  reservist,  whose  calling  is  that  of  a  book- 
keeper, declares  indeed  positively  "the  nature  of  the 
wound  showed  with  certainty  that  the  eyes  had  been 
gouged  out  deliberately  and  not  in  the  course  of  fight- 
ing," and  without  hesitation  the  "  Kriegsgerichtsrat " 
accepts  his  statement  without  any  enquiry  as  to  why 
this  bookkeeper  possessed  such  remarkable  knowledge. 
He  will  blush  for  it  some  day. 


226  THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

For  the  ascertainment  of  the  nature  and  cause 
of  wounds  of  that  kind  expert  investigation  is  indis- 
pensable. The  charge  that  the  eyes  of  wounded  have 
been  gouged  out  has  been  circulated  both  in  the  west 
and  in  the  east,  but  we  have  never  heard  that  the 
fact  has  been  scientifically  established;  on  the  contrary, 
we  have  repeatedly  seen  the  accusation  repelled  by 
experts  as  deliberately  untrue.*  In  the  absence  of 
further  evidence,  the  repetition  of  such  charges  can 
only  be  indulged  in  at  the  risk  of  being  guilty  of  calumny. 

As  may  be  conceived,  strong  measures  were  taken 
whenever  the  German  troops  believed  that  firing  by 
the  civil  population  had  taken  place.  On  what  prin- 
ciple did  they  act  in  such  cases?  Did  the  officers  act 
in  accordance  with  The  Hague  Convention  which, 
with  special  reference  to  the  measures  to  be  taken 
with  regard  to  combatant  civilians,  admonishes  bellig- 
erents that  the  population,  even  where  the  conven- 
tion does  not  protect  them,  "remains  under  the  pro- 
tection and  governance  of  the  principles  of  the  law  of 
nations,  derived  from  the  usages  established  among 
civilized  peoples,  from  the  laws  of  humanity,  and  from 
the%  dictates  of  public  conscience,"  a  warning  which 
enabled  many  States  to  join  in  the  convention  which 
otherwise  in  their  opinion  did  not  afford  sufficient  pro- 
tection to  the  population?  Did  they,  in  particular, 
bear  in  mind  Article  50  of  the  convention,  which  ex- 
pressly prescribes  that  "no  collective  penalty  .  .  . 

*The  case  of  the  wounded  in  hospital  at  Aix-la-Chapelle  is  known  to  every  one. 
With  regard  to  the  hospitals  at  Vienna,  Prof.  Lammasch  reports  in  the  Deutsche 
Revue  that  he  has  investigated  several  cases.,  in  which  maltreatment  of  this  kind 
has  been  alleged,  but  that  investigation  revealed  that  the  loss  of  the  soldier's  eyes 
was  attributable  to  shell  splinters. 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

shall  be  inflicted  upon  the  population  on  account  of 
the  acts  of  individuals  for  which  it  cannot  be  regarded 
as  collectively  responsible?"  Or  did  they  remember 
the  lessons  given  them  by  the  great  General  Staff  by 
means  of  the  German  War  Book,  in  which  they  were 
warned  against  the  "humanitaren  Anschauungen" 
(humanitarian  views)  of  the  day  which  not  seldom 
degenerate  into  * '  Sentimentalitat ' '  (sentimentality) 
and  "weichlicher  Gefuhlschwarmerei"  (flabby  emotion), 
and  are  in  entire  opposition  (volkommenem  Wider- 
spruch)  to  the  nature  and  object  of  war,  and  which 
have  already  found  moral  recognition  in  some  of 
the  rules  of  The  Hague  Convention?*  And  did  the 
fact  that  Article  50  of  the  convention  is  not  referred 
to  in  the  booklet  issued  by  the  General  Staff  and  that, 
on  the  contrary,  the  suppression  of  armed  resistance 
by  the  population  by  means  of  the  most  ruthless  mea- 


*In  the  modern  usages  of  war  one  can  no  longer  regard  merely  the  traditional 
inheritance  of  the  ancient  etiquette  of  the  profession  of  arms,  and  the  professional 
outlook  accompanying  it,  but  there  is  also  the  deposit  of  the  currents  of  thought 
which  agitate  our  time.  But  since  the  tendency  of  thought  of  the  last  century  was 
dominated  essentially  by  humanitarian  considerations  which  -not  infrequently 
degenerated  into  sentimentality  and  flabby  emotion  (Sentimentalitat  und  weich- 
licher Gefuhlschwarmerei)  there  have  not  been  wanting  attempts  to  influence  the 
development  of  the  usages  of  war  in  a  way  which  was  in  fundamental  contradiction 
with  the  nature  of  war  and  its  object.  Attempts  of  this  kind  will  also  not  be 
wanting  in  the  future,  the  more  so  as  these  agitations  have  found  a  kind  of  moral 
recognition  in  some  provisions  of  the  Geneva  Convention  and  the  Brussels  and 
Hague  Conferences.  Moreover,  the  officer  is  a  child  of  his  time.  He  is  subject 
to  the  intellectual  tendencies  which  influence  his  own  nation;  the  more  educated 
he  is  the  more  will  this  be  the  case.  The  danger  that,  in  this  way,  he  will  arrive  at 
false  views  about  the  essential  character  of  war  must  not  be  lost  sight  of.  The  danger 
can  only  be  met  by  a  thorough  study  of  war  itself.  By  steeping  himself  in  military 
history  an  officer  will  be  able  to  guard  himself  against  excessive  humanitarian  no- 
tions; it  will  teach  him  that  certain  severities  are  indispensable  to  war — nay,  more, 
that  the  only  true  humanity  very  often  lies  in  a  ruthless  application  of  them.  (German 
War  Book.  See  Professor  Morgan's  translation,  pp.  54-53  ib.) 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

sures  and  terrorism  is  recommended  by  reference  to 
Napoleon  and  Wellington,*  give  them  the  impression 
that  the  considerations  referred  to  above  apply  to  this 
Article  also? 

The  White  Book  gives  a  few  instances  of  humane 
treatment,  especially  of  women  and  children,  and 
no  one  will  doubt  that  many  other  instances  could 
have  been  given — the  German  soldier  is  still  a  man 
— nevertheless  it  does  not  appear  from  these  instances 
that  the  many  acts  of  inhumanity  with  which  the 
Germans  are  accused,  in  the  Belgian,  French,  and 
English  reports,  did  not  take  place.  But  if  one  asks 

*By  war  rebellion  is  to  be  understood  the  taking  up  of  arms  by  the  inhabitants 
against  the  occupation;  by  war  treason,  on  the  other  hand,  thte  injury  or  imperilling 
of  the  enemy's  authdrity  through  deceit  or  through  communication  of  news  to  one's 
own  army  as  to  the  disposition,  movement,  and  intention,  etc.,  of  the  army  in  oc- 
cupation, whether  the  person  concerned  has  come  into  possession  of  his  information 
by  lawful  or  unlawful  means  (i.  e.,  by  espionage). 

Against  both  of  these  only  the  most  ruthless  measures  are  effective.  Napoleon 
wrote  to  his  brother  Joseph,  when,  after  the  latter  ascended  the  throne  of  Naples, 
the  inhabitants  of  lower  Italy  made  various  attempts  at  revolt:  "The  security 
of  your  dominion  depends  on  how  you  behave  in  the  conquered  province.  Burn 
down  a  dozen  places  which  are  not  willing  to  submit  themselves.  Of  course,  not 
until  you  have  first  looted  them;  my  soldiers  must  not  be  allowed  to  go  away  with 
their  hands  empty.  Have  three  to  six  persons  hanged  in  every  village  which 
has  joined  the  revolt;  pay  no  respect  to  the  cassock.  Simply  bear  in  mind  how  I 
dealt  with  them  in  Piacenza  and  Corsica."  The  Duke  of  Wellington,  in  1814, 
threatened  the  South  of  France;  "he  will,  if  leaders  of  factions  are  supported,  burn 
the  villages  and  have  their  inhabitants  hanged."  In  the  year  1815,  he  issued  the 
following  proclamation:  "  All  those  who  after  the  entry  of  the  (English)  army  into 
France  leave  their  dwellings  and  all  those  who  are  found  in  the  service  of  the  usurper 
will  be  regarded  as  adherents  of  his  and  as  enemies;  their  property  will  be  used  for 
the  maintenance  of  the  army."  "These  are  the  expressions  in  the  one  case  of 
one  of  the  great  masters  of  war  and  of  the  dominion  founded  upon  war  power, 
and  in  the  other,  of  a  commander-in-chief  who  elsewhere  had  carried  the  protection 
of  private  property  in  hostile  lands  to  the  extremest  possible  limit.  Both  men  as 
soon  as  a  popular  rising  takes  place  resort  to  terrorism." — J.  von  Hartmann, 
Kritische  Versuche,  II,  p.  73.  (German  War  Book.  See  Prof.  Morgan's  version,  pp. 
121-122.  Translator.) 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

what  system  was  followed  in  suppressing  the  actual 
or  supposed  resistance"  of  the  civil  population,  the 
answer  can  only  be  that  it  was  one  of  "terrorism" 
slaughter  and  destruction  of  both  the  guilty  and  the 
innocent,  on  a  large  scale  utterly  disproportionate, 
to  the  measure  of  guilt  found  or  thought  to  be  found, 
and  designed  not  only  for  the  suppression  of  the  supposed 
resistance  but  as  a  deterrent  for  the  future.  Clearly  the 
humanitarian  principle  contained  in  Article  50  of  the 
convention  was  not  regarded  as  binding. 

In  conclusion,  we  may  test  the  general  observa- 
tions given  above  by  reference  to  a  particular  in- 
stance, namely,  the  series  of  events  at  Aerschot. 

IV. AERSCHOT 

Aerschot  is  an  old  town  of  about  8,000  inhabi- 
tants, and  lies  to  the  north  of  Louvain.  On  the 
morning  of  the  19th  of  August  there  took  place  in 
its  immediate  neighbourhood,  an  engagement  between 
German  and  Belgian  troops,  as  a  result  of  which  the 
former  entered  the  town.*  In  the  course  of  the  day 
the  place  became  crowded  with  soldiers — infantry 
and  cavalry,  supply  artillery  and  ammunition  columns. 
About  five  o'clock  the  staff  arrived.  Colonel  Stenger, 
commanding  the  brigade,  together  with  his  adjutant, 
Captain  Schwarz,  and  his  orderly  officer,  Lieutenant 
Beyersdorf,  took  up  quarters  in  the  house  of  the 
Burgomaster  on  the  market  square.  Captain  Karge, 
of  the  military  police,  went  to  the  house  of  the  Burgo- 

*For  all  that  follows  the  White  Book  is  the  exclusive  source.  Even  where  we 
give  our  own  explanation  of  the  facts  this  is  exclusively  founded  on  the  German 
statements.  The  use  of  statements  from  other  sources  would  lead  one  to  a  con- 
clusion not  wholly  coincident  with  this. 


230  THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

master's  brother,  situated  in  a  narrow  street,  which 
ran  toward  the  market  place  in  a  northerly  or  north- 
westerly direction.  Captain  Folz,  of  the  49th  In- 
fantry Regiment,  arrived  at  the  same  time  as  the 
latter,  and  shortly  after  came  Colonel  Jenrich,  who 
acted  as  local  commandant,  and  Captain  Schleusener, 
with  his  machine  gun  company. 

With  the  exception  of  Colonel  Stenger,  who  was 
killed,  these  are  the  witnesses  whose  statements  are 
contained  in  the  White  Book.  The  book  contains 
no  evidence  given  by  citizens  of  Aerschot. 

The  troops  were  well  received  by  the  inhabitants. 
Immediately  after  his  arrival,  Colonel  Jenrich  sum- 
moned the  Burgomaster,  warned  him  against  any 
hostile  behaviour  on  the  part  of  the  inhabitants, 
and  impressed  upon  him  "that  he  would  suffer  the 
penalty  of  death  if  an  attack  were  made  on  the  German 
troops  by  the  population." 

At  8  o'clock  in  the  evening  shots  were  suddenly 
heard  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  market  place. 
The  first  shots  were  followed  by  volleys,  and  then 
by  lively  rapid  firing.  The  soldiers,  who  filled  the 
narrow  winding  streets  and  the  market  place,  fell 
into  great  disorder  and  fired  without  intermission; 
the  mounted  men  and  drivers  left  their  horses  in  the 
lurch,  the  horses  bolted  and  the  wagons  ran  into 
each  other.  The  officers  hurried  out,  attempted  by 
orders  and  signals  to  make  the  soldiers  cease  firing,  a 
task  in  which  they  only  succeeded  with  difficulty.* 

*"I,  too,  with  Captain  Schwarz,  left  the  room  at  the  first  shot  in  order  to  re- 
store order  in  the  market  place  among  the  troops,  who  had  fallen  into  disorder 
owing  to  the  shooting"  (Beyersdorf). 

"The  drivers  and  artillery  soldiers  had  in  the  meantime  left  their  horses  and 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK  231 

The  houses  were  fired  upon  with  rifles  and  machine 
guns,  some  were  stormed  and  set  on  fire,  the  fleeing 
townsfolk  were  taken  prisoners  and  a  large  number 
of  them  shot. 

Did  the  townspeople  fire?  Not  one  of  the  witnesses 
examined  deposes  to  having  seen  this;  not  one  of  them 
found  a  citizen  with  arms  in  his  hands;  not  one  of  them 
had  heard  from  any  one  else  that  he  had  done  this. 
Nevertheless  they  were  convinced  of  it.  On  what  did 
their  conviction  rest? 

Captain  Schwarz  and  Lieutenant  Beyersdorf ,  when, 
in  the  house  of  the  Burgomaster,  they  heard  the  first 
shots,  were  of  opinion,  to  begin  with,  that  these  ema- 
nated from  the  enemy,  who  had  been  reported  in  the 
north.  This  appeared  to  be  incorrect.  Soon  shots 
fell  in  their  immediate  neighbourhood;  and  the  Burgo- 
master's house  itself  was  fired  upon.  By  citizens  or 
soldiers?  Both  officers  state  positively  "Von  den 
eigenen  Truppen  riihrten  die  Schiisse  nicht  her"  (the 
shots  did  not  come  from  our  own  troops).  How  could 
they  know  that?  All  the  other  witnesses  declare  that 
their  own  troops  fired  without  intermission,  and 
principally  on  the  market  square  itself.  It  follows, 
therefore,  that  the  statement  of  the  two  officers,  posi- 

wagons  and  taken  cover  from  the  shots  in  the  entrances  of  the  houses.  The  wagons 
to  some  extent  had  run  together,  because  the  horses,  becoming  restless,  had  sought 
their  own  way  without  the  drivers"  (Karge). 

"  After  a  short  time  I  seemed  to  notice  that  the  firing  was  being  answered  by  our 
troops  from  the  direction  of  the  market  place.  Soon  after  signals  and  shouts  '  Cease 
fire!'  were  heard.  The  firing  then  ceased  for  a  time,  but  was  reopened  apparently 
from  both  sides,  though  not  so  heavily"  (Karge). 

"Near  the  Mairie,  which  was  to  be  used  as  an  artillery  depot,  there  stood  a  cap- 
tain of  the  Infantry  Regiment  No  140,  who  had  the  signal  'Halt!'  blown  continu- 
ously. Clearly,  this  officer  desired,  in  the  first  place,  to  stop  the  shooting  of  our 
men"  (Fo/z). 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

lively  as  it  is  expressed,  is,  in  its  sweeping  terms, 
certainly  not  correct.  And  how,  in  the  given  circum- 
stances, the  streets  and  the  market  place  being  full 
of  thousands  of  disordered  soldiers,  horses  and  wagons, 
could  they,  whether  from  their  room  in  the  Burgo- 
master's house,  or  from  the  street  itself,  ascertain 
with  certainty  that,  neither  from  the  side  streets  nor 
on  the  market  place,  firing  by  their  own  soldiers  had 
taken  place? 

It  first  occurred  to  Captain  Karge  that  there  had 
been  some  carelessness  on  the  part  of  a  soldier  in 
the  baggage  train,  but  he  soon  changed  his  mind. 
On  what  grounds?  When,  at  the  first  shot,  he  looked 
out  of  the  window,  he  noticed  in  the  distance  near 
the  roof  of  the  house,  which  stood  at  the  corner  of 
the  market  place  and  the  street  in  which  his  quarters 
were  situated,  "leichte  Rauch-  und  Staub-wolken 
aufsteigen"  (light  clouds  of  smoke  and  dust  rising),  a 
phenomenon  which  was  repeated  at  the  next  volley. 
No  firing  took  place  from  the  windows,  and  hence  he 
inferred  from  the  dust  and  smoke  clouds  that  firing 
had  taken  place  through  openings  in  the  roof.  Ap- 
parently he  regarded  this  inference  as  obvious.  When 
the  rapid  firing  followed  the  first  volleys,  it  appeared 
to  him  that  it  came  from  other  houses  also.  On  what 
grounds  he  made  this  inference  is  not  stated  by  him. 

That  is  all.  Further  evidence,  that  townspeople 
fired  on  and  near  the  market  place,  is  not  given.  Serious 
doubts  are  indeed  raised,  that  the  soldiers  themselves 
were  guilty  of  it. 

There  arose  a  rumour,  also  mentioned  by  Captain 
Schwarz,  that  Belgian  troops  made  an  attack  on 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK  233 

the  town.  This  rumour  originated  among  the  troops 
at  the  northern  gate  of  the  town,  who  thereupon 
retired  to  the  market  place  in  disorder,  firing  as  they 
came.  Is  it  possible  that  the  soldiers  in  the  market 
place,  and  in  the  narrow  winding  streets  around  it, 
hearing  that  shooting,  but  being  unable  to  see  who 
fired,  took  it  for  firing  by  the  townspeople?  This  is, 
at  any  rate,  made  likely  by  the  evidence  of  Captain 
Folz,  who  thus  describes  the  first  incidents: — "It  was 
between  three  and  four  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  when 
we  rode  into  the  place.*  Of  German  troops  the  3d 
Infantry  Division  had  before  this  partly  come  through, 
and  the  whole  of  the  narrow  and  angularly  built  little 
town  was  full  of  provision,  artillery,  and  ammuni- 
tion columns.  We  had  been  about  three  hours  in 
the  town  when  suddenly  mad  firing  began.  This  firing 
came  from  about  the  northwest  entrance  of  the  village. 
Immediately  afterward  the  Ambulance  Company — 
I  think  it  was  the  2d — with  a  part  of  the  transport  of 
the  3d  Division,  came  to  us  and  reported  that  they 
had  been  fired  upon;  and  that  a  Belgian  battalion  was 
approaching." 

There  was,  accordingly,  a  double  rumour  by  which 
the  soldiers  were  brought  into  a  state  of  excitement, 
both  that  the  town  was  being  attacked  by  the  Belgians 
and  that  the  townsfolk  were  firing  on  the  soldiers. 
The  houses  were  now  stormed  and  fired  upon  from  all 
sides,  a  part  were  set  on  fire,  and  the  townspeople 
driven  or  dragged  out  of  them.  It  is  conceivable 

*This  must  be  a  mistake.  Captain  Folz  entered  the  town  contemporaneously 
with  the  Staff  Officers  and  Colonel  Jenrich,  all  of  whom  declare  that  it  was  five 
o'clock. 


234  THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

that  during  these  proceedings  in  the  narrow  winding 
streets  of  the  town,  firing  took  place  in  and  through 
the  houses,  and  that  thus  the  impression  was  produced 
that  firing  was  taking  place  from  the  houses.  Captain 
Folz,  who  at  the  beginning  of  the  firing  refers  only  to 
firing  by  soldiers,  declares  now — about  an  hour  later— 
that  he  had  heard  or  seen  shots  coming  from  houses. 
Captain  Schleusener  also  makes  the  same  observation 
at  this  stage.  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  the 
shots  emanated  from  citizens,  and  not  from  soldiers 
in  the  streets  and  in  the  houses.  How  great  was  the 
confusion  appears  from  the  evidence  of  Captain 
Schleusener  himself.  On  the  rumour  that  the  Belgians 
were  approaching,  he  with  difficulty  assembled  his 
machine  gun  company  and  marched  through  the  vil- 
lage to  the  open  country.  Captain  Folz  went  with 
him.  About  three  kilometres  from  the  village  it  was 
perceived  that  no  trace  of  the  enemy  was  anywhere  to 
be  found,  and  they  immediately  returned.  Captain 
Folz  returned  on  foot,  and  therefore  came  back  later 
than  the  others.  As  Captain  Schleusener  with  his 
company  entered  the  town  he  heard  firing;  he  met 
"the  cavalry  battalions  dashing  backward  and  for- 
ward and  the  transport  wagons  of  the  3d  Infantry 
Division  which  were  trying  to  turn  round,"  and  were 
firing  hard.  He  sought  to  stop  the  firing,  was  of  opin- 
ion that  he  had  succeeded,  and  heard  further  shots 
coming  from  the  houses.  On  this  he  ordered  "the 
machine  guns  to  be  unlimbered  and  the  house  fronts 
on  the  left  to  be  fired  upon."  He  is  told  "that  shots 
had  also  been  fired  from  a  house  on  the  right."  What 
does  he  do?  "I  had  the  guns  turned  round  to  open 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK  235 

fire  when  a  medical  officer  indicated  that  wounded 
were  lying  in  that  house."  For  this  reason  the  house 
was  not  fired  upon.  It  can  well  be  conceived  that 
Captain  Folz,  when  he  entered  the  village  just  after- 
ward, was  also  of  opinion  that  firing  was  taking  place 
from  the  houses  and  indeed  can  distinguish  "that  the 
firing  was  from  both  rifle  and  machine  guns." 

Apparently  the  losses  of  the  Germans,  even  with 
all  this,  were  very  slight.  Only  one  is  mentioned 
as  being  killed.  This  was  Colonel  Stenger,  who 
was  found  shot  dead  in  his  room  in  the  Burgomaster's 
house  with  wounds  in  the  face  and  chest.  The  balcony 
doors  were  open;  on  the  wall  opposite  them  traces  of 
bullets  were  found;  window  panes  were  smashed. 
Probably,  therefore,  the  colonel  was  killed  by  bullets 
from  outside. 

Was  this  done  by  civilians,  or  by  the  German  sol- 
diers who  had  been  firing  wildly  on  the  houses?  An 
autopsy  was  made  on  the  following  day  by  an  army 
surgeon,  but  neither  his  evidence  nor  his  report  on 
the  post  mortem  is  included  in  the  documents.  Cap- 
tain Folz,  indeed,  declares  that  he  heard  from  this 
doctor  that  the  wound  in  the  colonel's  face  was  not 
attributable  to  an  infantry  bullet,  and  that  he  himself 
is  of  the  opinion  that  the  breast  wound  must  have 
been  caused  by  a  shot  from  a  muzzle  loader.  But 
is  one,  on  this  statement  alone,  without  even  hearing 
the  medical  man,  to  assume  that  the  colonel  was  killed 
by  the  citizens  of  Aerschot? 

How  did  the  military  proceed  in  the  suppression 
of  the  supposed  insurrection  of  the  populace?  How 
many  citizens  were  killed  by  the  continuous  firing  on 


236  THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

the  houses  is  not  mentioned.  The  manner  in  which 
they  went  about  it  is  best  shown  in  the  vivid  narrative 
given  by  Captain  Karge.  This  officer,  as  above 
mentioned,  had  suspicion  of  the  red  corner  house  by 
the  market  place,  on  account  of  the  light  smoke  and 
dust  clouds  near  its  roof.  During  a  short  "Feuer- 
pause"  (interval  in  the  firing),  he  left  his  house,  in 
order  to  communicate  his  discoveries  to  a  colonel 
standing  in  the  market  place,  and  at  the  same  time 
asked  for  permission  to  set  the  house  in  question  on 
fire,  since  in  his  opinion  "the  ringleaders  of  the  whole 
affair  were  collected  in  this  house."  The  colonel 
refused  to  give  his  consent.  Thereupon,  so  he  him- 
self tells  us,  "I  now  took  some  soldiers  who  were 
near  me  and  went  with  them  toward  the  house  from 
which  the  shooting  had  first  taken  place,  and  in  the 
loft  of  which  I  still  presumed  the  originators  and 
leaders  to  be.  In  the  meantime,  a  lieutenant  of  the 
regiment  also  came  up,  and  having  taken  the  officer 
and  men  under  my  command  I  ordered  the  doors— 
the  house  had  a  house  door  and  a  shop  door — and  the 
windows  of  the  ground  floor,  which  were  securely 
locked,  to  be  broken  in.  Thereupon  I  pushed  into 
the  house  with  the  others,  and  using  a  fairly  large 
quantity  of  turpentine — which  was  found  in  a  can  of 
about  twenty  litres  capacity,  and  which  I  had  poured 
out  partly  on  the  first  storey  and  then  downstairs 
and  on  the  ground  floor — succeeded  in  setting  the 
house  on  fire  in  a  very  short  time.  Further,  I  had 
ordered  the  men  not  taking  part  in  this  to  guard  the 
entrances  of  the  house  and  to  arrest  all  male  persons 
escaping  from  it." 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK  237 

How  many  of  the  citizens  thus  taken  prisoner 
were  shot,  does  not  appear.  The  above-named  cap- 
tain caused  at  least  eighty-eight  to  be  shot  down. 
What  investigation  was  made?  What  proofs  were 
there  of  their  guilt?  He  tells,  himself,  how  it  hap- 
pened :  "  When  I  left  the  burning  house  several  civilians, 
including  a  young  priest,  had  been  arrested  from  the 
adjoining  houses.  I  had  these  brought  to  the  market 
place,  where  in  the  meantime  my  company  of  field 
gendarmes  had  collected.  I  then  put  the  columns  on 
the  inarch  out  of  the  town,  took  command  of  all  prison- 
ers, among  whom  I  set  free  the  women,  boys,  and  girls. 
I  was  commanded  by  a  staff  officer  (a  Section  Com- 
mander of  the  Field  Artillery  Regiment  No.  17)  to 
shoot  the  prisoners.  Then  I  made  my  gendarmes 
arrange  the  columns  and  keep  some  of  them  in  motion 
out  of  the  town.  I  ordered  the  rest  to  escort  the 
prisoners  and  take  them  out  of  the  town.  Here,  at 
the  exit,  a  house  was  burning,  and  by  the  light  of  it 
I  had  the  culprits — eighty-eight  in  number,  after  I 
had  separated  out  three  cripples — shot." 

On  the  following  day  many  others  were  shot  dead. 
On  this  we  get  nothing  beyond  the  statement  of  Colonel 
Jenrich,  which  speaks  for  itself:  "In  the  meantime  the 
houses  were  searched  by  the  troops,  and  a  considerable 
number  of  inhabitants  arrested,  whose  complicity  in 
the  attack  on  the  troops  was  proved.  Of  the  arrested 
male  inhabitants  the  Burgomaster,  his  son,  the  brother 
of  the  Burgomaster,  and  every  third  man  were  shot  on 
the  following  morning." 

From  the  foregoing  declaration  it  appears  that  the 
Burgomaster  also  was  shot,  the  colonel  thus  carrying 


238  THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

out  his  threat,  although  there  was  nothing  to  show  any 
guilt  or  complicity  on  the  part  of  the  Burgomaster  in 
the  supposed  insurrection  of  the  population.  Why  were 
his  son  and  his  brother  also  killed?  The  depositions 
give  only  slight  indications  on  this  point. 

After  Captain  Schwarz  had  found  Colonel  Stenger 
dead  in  his  room,  he  thought  it  necessary  to  institute 
a  search  of  the  house  in  the  presence  of  the  wife  and 
the  daughter  of  the  Burgomaster,  the  last  named  not 
being  present.  In  the  course  of  this  they  forced  their 
way  into  the  cellar,  and  there  found,  in  front  of  the 
window  opening  on  to  the  street,  an  "auffalliges 
Gestell"  (a  remarkable  stand)  while  the  window  pane 
was  shattered.  The  captain  concluded  from  this 
that  firing  must  have  taken  place  from  the  cellar. 
We  are  not  told  what  the  stand  was  like,  and  still 
less  are  we  informed  why  the  pane  must  have  been 
broken  by  a  shot  from  within  and  not  by  a  shot  from 
without.  It  is  true  that  Captain  Karge  declares  that 
coming  to  the  market  place  in  the  evening,  he  saw  a 
rifleman  standing  in  a  "Toreingang"  (porch),  who  as- 
sured him  that  he  had  just  distinctly  seen  that  a  shot 
had  come  from  a  house  situated  on  the  opposite  side, 
and  pointed  in  the  direction  of  the  Burgomaster's 
house.  Assuming  that  the  observation  was  accurate, 
was  accurately  communicated  and  accurately  under- 
stood, then  it  would  by  no  means  follow  that  firing 
had  taken  place  from  the  cellar  of  the  house;  indeed, 
it  is  very  improbable  that  the  rifleman,  standing  on  the 
opposite  side  of  the  market  place,  which  was  crowded 
with  soldiers  and  carts,  could  have  perceived  that  the 
shot  came  from  the  cellar. 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK  239 

However  that  may  be,  the  captain  in  the  further 
course  of  his  search  of  the  house  found  the  son  of  the 
Burgomaster,  a  lad  of  fifteen,  in  one  of  the  living 
rooms,  and  handed  him  over  to  the  guard  in  the 
market  place.  On  the  following  day  this  youth  to- 
gether with  his  father  and  his  uncle  were  shot. 

With  regard  to  these  shootings  there  is  undeni- 
ably a  serious  omission  in  the  depositions.  The 
"  Militar-TJntersuchungs-stelle  fur  Verletzungen  des 
Kriegsrechts"*  (Military  Department  for  Inquiry  into 
Breaches  of  the  Laws  of  War),  apparently  felt  this,  too, 
and  therefore  in  their  "Zusammenfassender  Bericht" 
(Summary)  they  have  to  some  extent  "clothed"  the 
subject  matter.  The  summary  justifies  the  shooting 
of  the  Burgomaster  together  with  his  son  and  his 
brother  as  follows:  "That  the  family  of  the  Burgo- 
master himself  not  only  had  knowledge  of  the  hostile 
acts,  but  also  took  part  in  them,  was  established  by 
the  immediate  search  of  the  house;  there  had  been 
firing  into  the  street  from  the  locked  cellarf  the  key  of 
which  the  family  pretended  to  have  lost!  and  which 
had  to  be  forced  open,  a  trestle  had  even  been  pushed 
up  to  the  cellar  window  to  make  a  convenient  position 
for  a  rifleman§;  a  musketeer  had  observed  with  the 
greatest  distinctness  a  shot  fired  from  the  house.  The 
son  of  the  Burgomaster  who  had  been  concealed  by  the 

*Major  Bauer  and  Kammergerichterat  Dr.  Wagner  sign  in  its  name. 

•jThis  was  observed  by  nobody. 

JThe  witness  merely  said  "Zu  der  der  Schllissel  angeblich  night  zu  finden  war" 
(the  key  of  which  it  was  alleged  could  not  be  found).  It  will  be  remembered  that 
the  Burgomaster  was  not  at  home. 

§Free  rendering  by  the  Commission  of  the  words  "ein  auffalliges  Gestell"  (a 
remarkable  stand). 


240  THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK 

family*  and  had  been  dragged  out  of  a  dark  roomf  was 
the  only  person  who  could  possibly  be  held  guilty 
of  this.J  As  the  family  were  in  all  respects  accomplices 
in  the  murder  of  the  colonel§  who  had  been  "hospit- 
ably" received  according  to  the  Belgian  story,  father 
and  son  were  shot  on  the  following  day,  August  20th. 
The  brother  of  the  Burgomaster  in  whose  house  Cavalry 
Captain  Karge,  in  command  of  the  2d  Company  of 
Field  Gendarmes  had  been  billeted,  on  the  proposal 
of  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  town,  and  who  had  been 
attacked**  shared  this  fate. 

In  this  way  the  matter  is  reconstructed  by  a  com- 
mission in  Berlin,  which  was  neither  present  when  the 
events  took  place,  nor  heard  the  witnesses  themselves. 
The  climax  of  the  report  of  the  commission  is  reached 
in  the  final  conclusion — "The  complicity  of  the  whole 
of  the  Burgomaster's  family  proves  how  systematically 
the  Belgian  officials  cooperated  in  this  treacherous 
treatment  of  the  German  troops,  which  was  so  re- 
grettably frequent." 

Nothing  is  given  beyond  a  supposition  based  on 
very  unreliable  grounds,  that  the  Burgomaster's  son 
fired  a  shot;  and  there  is  no  evidence  of  the  complicity 
of  the  father.  Nevertheless,  according  to  the  view  of 


*Statement  by  the  Commission,  not  made  by  any  of  the  witneses. 

fThe  witness  said:  "Beim  Absuchen  der  Wohnzimmer  kam  mir  der  Sohn  des 
Biirgermeisters  aus  einen  dunklen  Rimeau  entgegen."  (In  the  course  of  searching 
the  living  rooms  the  son  of  the  Burgomaster  came  toward  me  out  of  a  dark  room.) 

|The  Commission's  inference,  not  made  by  any  of  the  witnesses. 

§In  taking  this  view  is  not  the  Commission  closer  to  the  blood  feud  of  the  ancient 
Germans  than  to  Article  50  of  The  Hague  Convention? 

**The  witness  himself  said  merely  that  "  Schiisse  einschlugen  "  (shots  fell)  near 
him. 


THE  GERMAN  WHITE  BOOK  241 

the  commission  the  whole  family  had  to  suffer.  And 
because  they  all  had  to  suffer  for  it,  it  is  assumed  that 
they  all  took  part  in  the  attack,  and  this  amounts  to  a 
proof  that  the  Belgian  "officials"  "systematically" 
cooperated  in  such  plots. 

It  has  on  many  previous  occasions  in  the  course 
of  the  war  been  noticeable  that  the  Germans  have 
apparently  formed  a  low  estimate  of  the  insight  and 
critical  judgment  of  the  neutrals  whom  they  seek  to 
convince  of  the  justice  of  their  cause.  The  German 
White  Book  furnishes  a  fresh  instance  of  this.  If 
neutrals  are  to  be  convinced  that  the  extreme  severities 
carried  out  against  the  population  in  Belgium  were 
justified,  it  will  be  necessary  for  much  clearer  evidence 
to  be  brought  forward  than  that  contained  in  this  book. 
We  are  anxious  to  receive  enlightenment  as  to  the 
events  which  have  occurred,  and  do  not  wish  to  found 
our  judgment  solely  on  Belgian,  French,  and  English 
reports  into  which  exaggerations  may  easily  have 
found  their  way,  but  desire  that  the  Germans,  too,  may 
bring  forward  evidence  which  will  stand  the  test  of 
criticism,  and  will  in  fact  prove  that  which  it  is  desired 
to  prove,  instead  of  proving  the  exact  opposite. 


XII 
THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES 

By  H.  A.  L.  FISHER,  F.B.A. 

Vice-Chancellor  cf  the  University  of  Sheffield 


XII 
THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES 

UPON  the  old  controversy  between  Brutus  and 
Caesar  the  last  two  generations  in  Germany 
have  had  no  difficulty  in  coming  to  a  decision. 
The  republic  is  decidedly  out  of  fashion,  and  with  it 
the  whole  fabric  of  idealism  upon  which  in  1848  re- 
publican conclusions  were  wont  to  be  erected.  The 
modern  German  is  all  for  Csesarism,  for  a  big  state,  a 
big  army,  a  big  navy,  and  for  a  long  course  of  progressive 
national  expansion  under  the  dazzling  guidance  of  the 
Hohenzollern  house.  Of  the  old  gentle  cosmopolitan 
feeling,  which  suffused  the  literature  of  the  classical 
period,  there  is  now  not  a  trace  surviving.  Welt- 
bUrgertum  has  given  place  to  the  Nationalstaat,  just 
as  the  delicate  melodies  of  Mozart  have  been  suc- 
ceeded by  the  obstreperous  and  clashing  brilliance  of 
Strauss.  The  eloquence  of  Schiller  is  still  popular, 
but  the  sentiment  which  inspired  such  a  piece  as  the 
History  of  the  Revolt  of  the  United  Netherlands  is  as 
dead  in  Germany  as  Kant's  famous  dream  of  universal 
peace.  Realism  is  the  fetish  of  the  hour.  Politics 
must  be  real  or  they  are  despised  as  shadows;  and 
when  a  German  speaks  of  Realpolitik  he  means  a  policy 
based  on  material  interests,  supported  by  brute  force 
and  liberated  from  the  trammels  of  the  moral  conscience. 
It  is  not  surprising  that  the  triumphs  of  German 

245 


246        THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES 

Caesarism  in  the  world  of  fact  and  idea  have  led  to 
a  very  general  disparagement  of  the  value  and  utility 
of  small  states.  The  argument  may  be  gathered  from 
the  pages  of  Treitschke  or  indeed  from  any  of  the 
numerous  journalists  who  have  drawn  their  political 
sustenance  from  that  bitter  and  uncompromising 
apostle  of  imperial  methods.  It  runs  very  much  as 
follows.  In  a  small  state  civic  life  must  necessarily 
be  petty,  humble,  unambitious.  The  game  of  politics 
must  centre  round  small  issues,  and  thus  circumscribed 
in  scope,  loses  the  ethical  value  of  scale.  Great  affairs 
envisaged  on  a  large  horizon  have  a  power  of  stirring 
the  passionate  and  imaginative  elements  in  man,  which 
are  apt,  save  in  the  rarer  cases,  to  respond  to  stimuli  in 
proportion  to  their  magnitude.  Existence  in  a  small 
state  may  be  elegant,  charming,  idyllic,  compatible 
with  the  production  of  literature  and  art,  but  it  can 
never  be  swept  by  the  great  passions  which  move  the 
world.  A  small  state  may  create  among  its  members 
a  mild,  humdrum  kind  of  affection  for  its  history  and 
institutions,  but  can  never  be  a  source  of  that  trium- 
phant pride  and  hope  which  lifts  citizenship  up  to  the 
plane  of  heroism.  In  a  sense  it  may  be  said  that  the 
history  of  small  states  is  wound  up.  They  may  linger 
on,  preserved  by  the  mutual  jealousies  of  rival  Powers, 
or  because  it  is  worth  nobody's  while  to  attack  them, 
but  their  bodies  will  be  starved  and  anaemic  and  their 
souls  mere  echoes  of  the  great  movements  of  mind  and 
emotion  which  are  liberated,  almost  automatically, 
by  the  diurnal  movement  in  great  and  powerful  nations 
of  the  social  and  political  machine.  Sooner  or  later  the 
small  states  will  go.  They  will  be  absorbed  in  larger 


THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES        247 

political  aggregates.  They  will  follow  the  line  of 
historical  development  which  has  created  the  large 
modern  states  of  Europe  out  of  a  mosaic  of  tiny  and 
warring  fiefs.  And  nobody  will  regret  their  demise, 
least  of  all  the  citizens  themselves. 

Indeed,  from  the  point  of  view  of  peoples  like  the 
Belgians  or  the  Dutch,  the  moment  of  inevitable  absorp- 
tion cannot  be  too  rapidly  hastened.  Only  then  will 
they  be  compelled  to  discard  trifles  and  to  "  think  im- 
perially" of  serious  things.  Their  geography,  politi- 
cal and  intellectual,  will  be  enlarged.  The  art  of  war 
will  be  earnestly  practised.  The  spectator  will  sud- 
denly become  an  actor.  Great  tides  of  national  passion 
and  aspiration  will  sweep  into  the  tiny  state,  chasing 
away  impurities,  like  the  majestic  ocean  suddenly 
admitted  in  overwhelming  might  into  a  network  of 
landlocked  and  stagnant  pools. 

The  disciples  of  Csesarism  will  even  proceed  to 
contend  that  patriotism  in  its  fullest  sense  is  only 
possible  to  large  nations.  Great  states  march  on,  little 
states  mark  time.  The  movement  of  the  great  state 
is  continuous  and  imposing,  and,  as  in  the  case  of 
other  orderly  developments,  its  future  can  be  forecast 
with  a  certain  degree  of  exactitude.  Guided  by  the 
hand  of  God,  the  mighty  organs  which  are  the  chosen 
vessels  of  the  highest  culture  upon  earth  take  up,  one 
after  another  in  due  sequence,  each  item  of  their  sacred 
and  providential  programme.  Thus  we  have  a  long 
historic  process  ending  in  the  formation  of  the  Prussian 
kingdom,  succeeded  by  another  process  leading  to  the 
establishment  of  the  German  Empire,  and  to  be  fol- 
lowed by  a  third  process  in  the  course  of  which  the 


248        THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES 

German  Empire  will  become  a  world-power,  not  only 
supreme  on  the  continent  of  Europe  but  exercising  a 
predominant  political  influence  over  the  whole  surface 
of  the  globe.  Great  states  have  a  destiny  of  which 
their  citizens  are  conscious.  Et  quasi  cur  sores  vitai 
lampada  tradunt.  Men  come  and  go,  the  seasons  wax 
and  wane,  but  each  generation  in  its  own  brief  allot- 
ment of  life  is  sustained  by  the  consciousness  that  it 
works  on  a  providential  plan,  fulfilling  one  of  the  grand 
and  mysterious  processes  of  God  for  the  improvement 
of  the  world  by  the  spread  of  German  culture.  So 
did  the  divines  of  the  Dark  Ages  applaud  the  forced 
conversions  of  Charlemagne. 

Even  in  matters  of  technical  equipment  Destiny  is 
said  to  have  decided  in  favour  of  the  big  battalions. 
It  is  freely  argued  in  Germany  that  a  perfect  organiza- 
tion of  educational  machinery  is  only  possible  to  the 
opulence  and  minute  articulation  of  a  great  nation,  for 
the  more  powerful  the  state,  the  richer  will  be  the  fund 
available  for  museums,  art  galleries,  and  libraries,  and 
the  larger  the  class  capable  of  enjoying  them.  Great 
states,  in  fact,  resemble  great  businesses  which  on  a  given 
expenditure  of  capital  realize  a  higher  rate  of  profit 
than  their  smaller  rivals,  command  wider  markets,  and 
exercise  a  stronger  power  in  barter  and  sale. 

It  is  easy  to  understand  how  the  Germans  have 
arrived  at  this  confident  and  unqualified  conclusion 
as  to  the  worthlessness  of  small  states,  seeing  that  their 
own  late  arrival  into  the  circle  of  the  Great  Powers  was 
due  to  the  long  continuance  of  that  Kleinstaaterei,  that 
small-state  system,  which  attracts  so  much  hostile  fire 
from  the  ranks  of  the  Prussian  historians .  The  humilia- 


THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES    249 

tions  suffered  by  Germany  at  the  hands  of  Napoleon, 
the  glory  of  the  War  of  Liberation,  which  may  be  called 
the  first  common  act  of  the  German  people,  the  fatal 
relapse  into  the  old  system  of  loose  impotent  federation, 
and  finally  the  foundation  of  the  German  Empire  under 
Prussian  hegemony — these  sharply  contrasted  periods 
of  national  history  all  point  to  the  same  lesson,  the 
paralysis  bred  of  disunion  and  the  power  generated  b: 
unity. 

Even  now  the  disciplinarian  conscience  of  Prussia 
judges  that  the  unity  of  Germany  is  all  too  imperfectly 
achieved.  There  are  the  separate  states,  there  are  the 
suppressed  nationalities,  there  are  the  active  and 
contentious  political  parties  whose  struggles  impair  the 
majesty  of  the  Reichstag,  and  whose  criticism  weakens 
and  perplexes  the  direction  of  imperial  policy.  When 
the  Social  Democrats,  or  the  Poles,  or  the  Catholics  of 
the  Centre  embarrass  the  Government,  good  German 
imperialists  look  with  envy  at  the  social  and  religious 
cohesion  of  Great  Britain.  There  is  then  no  ground  for 
wonder  if,  to  the  patriotic  German  of  modern  times, 
a  contracted  spirit  of  localism,  only  to  be  eradicated 
by  a  strenuous  effort  of  the  national  will,  seems  to  be 
the  principal  flaw  in  the  political  character  of  the 
German  race,  as  it  has  undoubtedly  been  the  chief 
source  of  German  political  impotence  in  the  past. 
And  we  can  easily  see  how  Germans,  realizing  the  evils 
of  past  disunion,  and  exercising  that  tendency  to 
generalize  which  is  inveterate  in  the  Teutonic  intelli- 
gence, come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  happiness  and 
advance  of  mankind  are  bound  up  in  the  expansion  of 
great  states  and  in  the  disappearance  of  small  ones. 


250   THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES 

It  must  be  confessed  that  this  general  attitude  is 
affected  by  considerations  of  a  different  order.  Out- 
side the  limits  of  the  German  Empire  lies  a  Germania 
irredenta,  a  line  of  small  states  inhabited  in  whole  or 
part  by  men  of  German  stock  and  once  included  in  the 
imperial  orbit. 

Doctor  Rohrbach  writes: 

Of  the  territory,  which  belonged  to  the  German  Empire  five 
hundred  years  ago  and  was  inhabited  by  men  of  German  stock, 
more  than  a  third  has  been  abstracted  from  modern  Germany — 
the  German  lands  of  Austria,  the  Netherlands,  Belgium  and  Swit- 
zerland. If  you  add  in  the  Livonian  territories  from  the  Memel 
to  the  Gulf  of  Finland — where  it  is  true  the  mass  of  the  peasantry 
was  not  German,  but  where  the  townsfolk  and  the  knights  were 
German  and  the  princes  and  nobility  members  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire — then  modern  Germany  is  only  half  the  size  of  Germany 
at  the  end  of  the  Middle  Ages.  We  leave  out  of  our  consideration 
those  territories  which  at  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  and  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fifteenth  century  were  only  bound  to  the  Empire  by  a 
loose  connection  and  belonged  naturally  to  France  and  Italy,  like 
the  Free  County  of  Burgundy,  the  duchies  of  Savoy,  Milan,  Man- 
tua, Verona,  and  confine  ourselves  in  the  first  place  to  territories 
inhabited  by  ancient  German  settlements,  and  secondly  to  the 
Slavonic  lands  of  the  East  which  were  comprised  in  the  German 
colonizing  movement.  To  these  Bohemia  at  that  time  belonged, 
for  its  penetration  by  German  influence  was  only  checked  by  the 
counter  reformation.  It  was  not  till  about  1400  that  the  Kingdom 
of  Poland  pushed  the  German  frontier  farther  west.  Posen 
and  a  piece  of  West  Prussia  and  Schleswig,  though  not  entirely 
inhabited  by  Germans,  constitute  the  only  territorial  gain  which 
the  modern  German  Empire  has  to  show  in  comparison  with  the 
old  Empire.  But  what  are  these  gains  in  comparison  with  the 
losses!  The  ring  of  territories  encircling  modern  Germany,  in- 
habited by  more  than  20,000,000  men  of  German  stock,  politically 
and  even  in  national  sentiment  estranged  from  German  thought, 


THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES 

To  a  person  imbued  with  a  belief  in  the  historical 
mission  of  Germany  this  contraction  of  the  imperial 
orbit,  so  accurately  described  by  Dr.  Rohrbach,  is  one 
of  those  disagreeable  facts  only  to  be  fitted  into  a 
rational  scheme  of  the  universe  if  they  are  destined  to 
be  speedily  reversed.  Sooner  or  later  Providence  must 
intend  that  the  broken  unity  of  the  mediaeval  German 
Empire  should  be  reunited  to  the  parent  stock.  And 
so  the  argument  descends  from  the  high  plateau  of 
general  ideas  to  the  low  ground  of  political  appetite 
which  is  watered  by  the  streams  of  national  memory. 

In  view  of  this  interpretation  it  is  pertinent  to  ask 
what  the  world  has  gained  from  small  states  in  the  past, 
how  far  they  justify  their  existence  in  the  present,  and 
whether  they  are  likely  to  perform  any  valuable  func- 
tion in  the  economy  of  the  future. 

Almost  everything  which  is  most  precious  in  our 
civilization  has  come  from  small  states,  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  Homeric  poems,  the  Attic  and  the  Eliza- 
bethan drama,  the  art  of  the  Italian  Renaissance,  the 
common  law  of  England.  Nobody  needs  to  be  told 
what  humanity  owes  to  Athens,  Florence,  Geneva,  or 
Weimar.  The  world's  debt  to  any  one  of  these  small 
states  far  exceeds  all  that  has  issued  from  the  militant 
monarchies  of  Louis  XIV,  of  Napoleon,  of  the  present 
Emperor  of  Germany.  It  may,  perhaps,  be  objected 
that  the  apparition  of  artistic,  literary,  or  scientific 
genius  is  an  incalculable  matter  of  hazard  unaffected  by 
the  size  of  the  political  community  in  which  the  great 
man  happens  to  be  born,  and  that  we  are  only  entitled 
to  infer  from  these  examples  that  a  small  state  may 
provide  an  atmosphere  in  which  genius  may  thrive. 


THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES 

It  is,  however,  a  relevant  answer  to  much  of  the  criti- 
cism now  levelled  in  Germany  against  small  states,  to 
remind  ourselves  that  in  the  particular  points  of  heroic 
and  martial  patriotism,  civic  pride  and  political  pru- 
dence, they  have  often  reached  the  highest  levels  to 
which  it  is  possible  for  humanity  to  attain,  and  that 
from  Thucydides,  Plato,  and  Aristotle,  as  well  as  from 
the  illustrious  school  of  Florentine  historians  and 
publicists,  the  world  has  learned  nine  tenths  of  its 
best  political  wisdom.  America  has  particular  reasons 
for  gratefully  recognizing  one  of  the  smallest  and  most 
illustrious  of  the  city  states  of  Europe.  The  seed  of 
modern  democratic  theory  was  sown  in  Geneva,  and 
being  scattered  on  the  hither  shore  of  the  North 
American  continent  by  small  communities,  organized 
on  the  model  of  Calvin,  burgeoned  into  the  great 
Republic  of  the  West. 

Nor  is  it  fanciful,  in  estimating  the  causes  which 
contributed  to  the  peculiar  brilliance  first  of  the  Greek 
and  then  of  the  Italian  city  state,  to  attribute  some 
weight  to  the  question  of  size.  Indeed,  if  we  do  this, 
we  shall  only  be  echoing  the  voice  of  antiquity  itself. 
In  the  famous  passage  in  which  he  depicts  the  linea- 
ments of  the  ideal  state,  Aristotle  gives  the  opinion  that 
a  city  so  large  that  its  citizens  are  unable  to  hear  the 
voice  of  a  single  town-crier  has  passed  the  limits  of 
wholesome  growth.  This  conclusion  was  based  on  the 
view  that  every  citizen  must  take  a  direct  part  in  the 
political  deliberations  of  the  state  to  which  he  belongs. 
Indeed,  had  the  states  of  antiquity  exceeded  the  limits 
compatible  with  direct  government,  the  world  would 
have  lost  a  good  part  of  its  political  education.  As  it 


THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES        253 

was,  the  contracted  span  of  these  communities  carried 
with  it  three  conspicuous  benefits.  The  city  state 
served  as  a  school  of  patriotic  virtue,  not  in  the  main 
of  the  blustering  and  thrasonical  type,  but  refined  and 
sublimated  by  every  grace  of  instinct  and  reason.  It 
further  enabled  the  experiment  of  a  free  direct  demo- 
cratic government  to  be  made,  with  incalculable  conse- 
quences for  the  political  thinking  of  the  world.  Finally, 
it  threw  into  a  forced  and  fruitful  communion  minds  of 
the  most  different  temper,  giving  to  them  an  elasticity 
and  many-sidedness  which  might  otherwise  have  been 
wanting  or  less  conspicuous,  and  stimulating,  through 
the  close  mutual  competition  which  it  engendered,  an 
intensity  of  intellectual  and  artistic  passion  which  has 
been  the  wonder  of  all  succeeding  generations  and  such 
as  can  never  be  reached  in  great  states  organized  for 
the  vulgarity  of  aggressive  war. 

So  much  at  least  will  be  generally  conceded.  The 
question  for  us,  however,  is  not  to  assess  our  debt  to 
the  city  states  of  the  past,  but  to  consider  what  argu- 
ments may  be  found  for  safeguarding  the  existence  of 
the  smaller  nation  states  of  the  modern  world.  And 
first  of  all  it  is  relevant  to  ask  whether  there  may  not 
be  some  advantage  to  humanity  at  large  arising  from 
the  fact  that  certain  communities  are  withdrawn  by 
reason  of  the  scale  from  the  competition  of  armaments. 
To  certain  military  minds  in  Germany  it  seems  to  be 
a  lamentable  thing  that  any  community  of  human 
beings  should  be  organized  on  a  basis  of  peace,  or  that 
the  policy  of  any  Government  should  be  steadily  di- 
rected toward  the  preservation  of  its  subjects  from 
the  horrors  of  war.  Let  us  assume  for  a  moment  that 


254        THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES 

this  extravagant  proposition  is  true,  and  that  the  Swiss, 
the  Danes,  the  Dutch,  and  the  Belgians  would  be 
greatly  improved  in  their  general  morality  if  they  were 
thrown  into  some  big  military  empire  with  an  aggres- 
sive world-policy  and  a  providential  destiny  to  impose 
its  culture  on  the  world,  and  all  the  other  familiar 
paraphernalia  of  the  Potsdam  philosophy.  We  have 
still  to  ask  ourselves  the  question  whether,  even  from 
the  selfish  point  of  view  of  the  Great  Powers  who  are 
blessed  with  the  moral  luxury  of  a  conscript  army,  there 
may  not  be  some  convenience  attaching  to  the  con- 
tinued existence  of  small  oases  of  peace  in  a  world 
nervously  equipping  itself  for  Armageddon?  Has  Italy 
no  cause  to  be  grateful  to  the  Swiss  Confederation? 
Would  the  Scandinavian  kingdoms  preserve  their 
unruffled  neutrality  if  the  Danish  peninsula  were 
swallowed  up  by  Germany?  And  has  the  disappear- 
ance of  Poland  really  benefited  the  two  greatest  parti- 
tioning Powers  whose  past  appetites  have  brought 
them  the  heritage  of  restless  anxiety  which  belongs 
to  the  vigil  of  coterminous  states?  Indeed  it  is  not 
easy  to  measure  the  injurious  consequences  which 
have  grown  from  the  disappearance  of  that  middle 
kingdom  of  Lotharingia  which  once  served  as  a  buffer 
between  France  and  Germany,  or  from  the  extinction 
of  the  Polish  nation  at  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury. By  common  confession  European  diplomacy 
suffers  from  nerves;  and  the  nervous  tension  is  neces- 
sarily increased  with  every  addition  to  the  ranks  of 
the  rivals.  The  entanglements  likely  to  give  rise  to 
conflict  are  proportionate  to  the  number  and  weight 
of  the  Powers  which  stand  inside  the  ring.  Every 


THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES        255 

ally  who  joins  one  or  other  of  the  coalitions  brings 
with  him  a  whole  cluster  of  new  interests  which  the 
coalition  is  bound  to  defend,  and  thereby  increases 
the  chance  of  war.  Every  Power  which  stands  aside 
lessens  the  general  strain  and  contracts  the  area  of 
inflammable  controversy. 

But  the  advantages  to  be  derived  from  the  existence 
of  small  buffer  states  are  subject  to  the  clear  condition 
that  their  independence  and  neutrality  are  respected. 
Let  us  consider  for  a  moment  what  the  world  would 
have  gained  if  the  German  Emperor  and  his  advisers 
had  all  along  regarded  the  violation  of  Belgian  neu- 
trality as  an  unthinkable  crime.  Not  only  would  Great 
Britain  be  now  at  peace,  but  no  general  European  war 
would  have  taken  place  at  all.  The  challenge  to 
Russia  was  thrown  down  by  Germany  because  it  was 
calculated  in  Berlin  that  by  marching  through  Belgium 
the  Germans  could  easily  crush  France  before  the 
Russian  peril  became  insistent.  It  is  absurd  to  speak 
of  the  violation  of  Belgian  neutrality  as  a  "bitter 
necessity"  forced  upon  a  reluctant  country  in  an 
unforeseen  emergency.  It  was,  on  the  contrary,  the 
deliberate  groundwork  for  a  careful  edifice  of  ag- 
gressive diplomacy.  The  entire  plan  of  the  campaign 
against  France  was  framed  on  the  supposition  that  the 
Germans  would  march  through  Belgium.  The  whole 
scheme  of  operations  against  Russia  was  based  on  the 
belief  that  the  total  weight  of  the  German  military 
power  could  be  thrown  on  the  eastern  frontier  by 
reason  of  the  rapid  and  crushing  success  which  a  Ger- 
man army,  advancing  through  the  Belgian  gateway, 
would  be  able  to  achieve  in  France.  And  upon  these 


256        THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES 

two  military  calculations  the  ambitious  edifice  of 
German  world -policy  was  built.  All  the  plans  of 
the  General  Staff  were  secretly  framed  on  the  sup- 
position that  Belgium  would  be  treated  as  part  of  the 
German  Empire  in  the  event  of  war.  It  was  with 
this  prospect  in  view  that  Germany  thought  it  safe  to 
defy  Russia  in  1909  and  to  repeat  the  defiance  in  1914. 
And  though  it  would  be  difficult  to  set  bounds  to  the 
military  presumption  of  Germany,  it  may  be  safely 
assumed  that  if  the  Belgian  doorway  had  been  patently 
barred,  the  diplomacy  of  the  German  Empire  would 
have  been  tuned  to  a  more  modest  key.  The  moral  of 
all  this  is  clear  enough.  The  small  states  should  not 
be  abolished:  on  the  contrary,  their  neutrality  should 
be  supported  by  a  guarantee  so  formidable  that  the 
strongest  Power  would  never  be  tempted  in  future  to 
infringe  it. 

We  may  test  the  value  of  these  communities  by  an- 
other criterion.  The  Hague  Tribunal  has  been  the  object 
of  much  silly  depreciation,  and  the  military  parties  in  the 
world  are  never  tired  of  giving  voice  to  the  contempt 
in  which  they  involve  the  whole  principle  of  arbitration. 
It  is  true  that  the  belief  in  the  value  of  pacific  solutions 
chiefly  flourishes  in  small  unmilitary  states  like  Holland, 
or  in  that  large  and  imposing  aggregate  of  small 
civilian  states  which  goes  by  the  name  of  the  United 
States  of  America.  And  it  is  equally  true  that  no 
nation  has  yet  consented  or,  in  the  present  state  of 
public  ethics,  is  likely  to  consent  to  refer  matters 
affecting  its  "vital  interests,  independence,  or  honour" 
to  an  international  tribunal.  Nevertheless  a  consider- 
able number  of  arbitration  treaties  have  been  concluded 


THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES        257 

agreeing  to  refer  differences  to  The  Hague  Tribunal; 
and  in  the  course  of  the  North  Sea  incident  of  1904  the 
strained  relations  between  England  and  Russia  were 
greatly  eased  by  the  fact  that  The  Hague  Conference 
had  already  provided  a  method  of  procedure  by  which 
the  dispute  might  be  adjusted  without  loss  of  dignity 
to  either  side.  Arbitration  cannot  banish  war,  but 
it  can  diminish  the  accumulation  of  minor  grievances 
which,  if  untended,  are  apt  to  create  that  inflamed 
state  of  public  opinion  out  of  which  wars  easily  arise; 
and  in  the  case  of  larger  disputes  recourse  to  arbitra- 
tion has  at  least  the  advantage  of  gaining  time.  Now 
the  condition  of  mind  which  supports  the  principle  of 
arbitration,  and  which  provides  facilities  for  recourse 
to  it,  is  only  made  possible  by  the  existence  of  com- 
munities organized  for  peace,  and  standing  outside  the 
armed  and  vigilant  rivalries  of  the  great  continental 
Powers. 

It  is  symptomatic  of  the  Prussian  spirit  to  disparage 
any  manifestation  of  natural  feeling  which  runs  counter 
to  the  assumed  necessities  of  a  militant  Empire;  and  so 
in  books  written  even  by  such  eminent  and  moderate 
men  as  Prince  von  Billow,  the  late  Chancellor  of 
Germany,  we  find  a  fixed  intention  to  suppress,  so  far  as 
may  be,  the  national  characteristics  of  the  Poles,  Danes, 
and  men  of  Latin  race  who  have  been  incorporated 
in  the  Empire.  We  in  England,  who  have  some  experi- 
ence of  minor  nationalities,  cannot  read  of  the  recent 
developments  of  Prussian  policy  in  Poland  without  feel- 
ing how  unintelligent  and  oppressive  it  is,  and  how  much 
better  it  would  be  in  the  interests  of  internal  peace  and 
consolidation,  if  Germany  would  throw  her  mind  into 


258   THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES 

a  generous  and  liberal  attitude  toward  the  men  of 
alien  type  whom  she  has  absorbed  by  conquest.  But 
it  is  part  of  the  Prussian  genius — if  a  drillmaster  can 
have  genius — to  regard  all  variety,  not  only  as  trouble- 
some, which  it  often  may  be,  but  as  injurious,  which 
it  very  seldom  is.  Indeed,  one  of  the  principal  argu- 
ments in  favour  of  the  preservation  of  the  small  states 
of  Europe  (and  the  same  argument  applies  to  the 
preservation  of  the  state  system  in  America)  lies  in 
the  fact  that  these  small  communities  do  vary  from  the 
set  type  which  is  imprinted  by  steady  and  powerful 
governments  upon  the  life  and  behaviour  of  the  larger 
Powers.  The  mere  fact  of  this  variety  is  an  enrich- 
ment of  human  experience  and  a  stimulus  to  self- 
criticism  and  improvement.  Indeed,  the  existence  of 
small  states  operates  in  the  large  and  imperfect  economy 
of  the  European  system  very  much  in  the  same  way 
as  the  principle  of  individual  liberty  operates  in  any 
given  state,  preventing  the  formation  of  those  massive 
and  deadening  weights  of  conventional  opinion  which 
impair  the  free  play  of  individuality,  and  affording  a 
corrective  to  the  vulgar  idea  that  the  brute  force  of 
organized  numbers  is  the  only  thing  which  really 
matters  in  the  world. 

The  critic  of  small  states  may  also  fairly  be  asked 
what  he  means  by  the  word  "civilization."  If  civiliza- 
tion is  a  phrase  denoting  the  sum  of  those  forces  which 
help  to  bind  men  together  in  civil  association;  if  it 
means  benevolence,  dutifulness,  self-sacrifice,  a  lively 
interest  in  the  things  of  the  mind,  and  a  discerning 
taste  in  the  things  of  the  sense;  then  there  is  no  reason 
to  think  that  these  qualities  are  the  special  prerogative 


THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES   259 

of  great  states.  Indeed,  there  is  a  certain  type  of 
harsh  and  stoical  patriotism  which,  by  reason  of  its 
austere  and  arrogant  exclusiveness,  is  inimical  to  the 
growth  of  civilized  feeling.  It  is  not  confined  to  big 
states,  for  it  was  present  in  ancient  Sparta;  nor  is  it 
the  necessary  accompaniment  even  of  huge  military 
monarchies.  But  it  is  the  spirit  of  modern  Prussia, 
a  spirit  consistent  indeed  with  the  heroic  qualities  of 
the  barbarous  ages,  but  lacking  the  sane  and  tem- 
perate outlook  of  civilized  life.  All  through  history  the 
great  enemy  of  human  reason  has  been  fanaticism. 
And  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  fanaticism 
of  a  military  state,  served  by  the  most  destructive 
artillery  in  the  world,  is  any  bit  less  injurious  to  man- 
kind than  the  spirit  which  for  many  centuries  of  his- 
tory condemned  the  religious  heretic  to  the  torments 
of  the  stake. 

It  is  difficult  rightly  to  assess  the  contributions  which 
the  smaller  states  of  Europe  have  made  during  the  past 
century  to  the  sum  of  human  culture.  Nor  would  a 
mere  list  of  eminent  men  such  as  Ibsen  and  Maeterlinck 
—of  whom  every  cultivated  person  has  heard — or 
Gramme,  the  Belgian  inventor  of  the  dynamo,  or 
Van  't  Hoff,  the  famous  Dutch  chemist,  prove  more 
than  the  indisputable  fact  that  intellectual  life  of  the 
highest  quality  may  be  carried  on  in  such  communities. 
It  is  of  course  possible  that,  if  Holland  were  forced 
into  the  German  confederation,  Dutch  painting,  which 
has  now  reached  a  level  far  higher  than  any  attained  in 
recent  years  in  Germany,  would  suffer  no  eclipse,  and 
that  the  Dutch  universities  would  persevere  in  their 
work  of  scholarly  theological  exegesis.  It  is  possible 


260        THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES 

that,  under  the  same  conditions,  the  wonderful  per- 
fection to  which  the  little  kingdom  of  Denmark  has 
brought  the  arts  of  dairy-farming  and  agriculture 
would  still  be  maintained.  But  it  would  depend  en- 
tirely upon  the  degree  of  liberty  and  autonomy  which  a 
German  emperor  might  be  willing  to  concede,  whether 
this  would  be  so  or  not,  whether  the  natural  currents 
of  hopeful  energy  would  continue  to  flow  or  whether 
they  would  be  effectually  sealed  up  by  the  ungenial 
fiat  of  an  alien  taskmaster.  Upon  this  it  is  unnecessary 
to  speculate.  But  it  is  strictly  pertinent  to  the  argu- 
ment to  remember  that  the  three  small  states,  whose 
existence  is  closely  and  specially  threatened  by  the 
expansion  of  Germany,  have  each  developed  not  only 
a  peculiar  and  strongly  marked  economy,  but  certain 
special  excellences  and  qualities  such  as  are  most 
likely  to  be  developed  in  an  atmosphere  of  comparative 
tranquillity.  Thus,  apart  from  the  school  of  land- 
scape painting,  the  Dutch  have  set  a  model  to  the 
world  in  all  that  pertains  to  the  scientific  classification 
and  management  of  archives,  vanquishing  in  this 
particular  even  the  French,  whose  organization  of 
historical  learning  is  so  justly  famed.  Denmark,  too, 
has  its  own  specialty  in  a  very  perfect  organism  for 
cooperative  production  in  agriculture. 

Indeed,  one  of  the  advantages  flowing  from  the  exis- 
tence of  smaller  states  consists  in  the  fact  that  they  serve 
as  convenient  laboratories  for  social  experiment — a 
point  likely  to  be  appreciated  in  America,  in  view  of  the 
great  mass  of  material  for  the  comparative  study  of 
social  and  industrial  expedients  which  is  provided  by 
the  enterprise  of  the  American  State  legislatures. 


THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES        261 

Such  experiments  as  women's  suffrage,  or  as  the  State 
prohibition  of  the  public  sale  of  alcoholic  drink,  or  as  a 
thoroughgoing  application  of  the  Reformatory  theory 
of  punishment,  would  never  be  seriously  discussed  in 
large,  old,  and  settled  communities,  were  it  not  for  the 
fact  that  they  have  been  tried  upon  a  smaller  scale 
by  the  more  adventurous  legislatures  of  the  New  World. 
Man  is  an  imitative  animal,  and  a  study  of  such  an 
organ  as  the  Journal  of  Comparative  Legislation  exhibits 
the  increasing  uniformity  of  the  problems  which  con- 
front the  legislator,  and  the  increasing  monotony  of 
the  solutions  which  he  finds  to  meet  them.  All  over 
the  world  industrial,  educational,  penal  legislation 
tends  to  conform  to  type.  And  within  limits  the 
tendency  is  the  necessary  and  wholesome  consequence 
of  the  unifying  influence  of  modern  industrial  condi- 
tions. But  our  enlarged  facilities  for  imitation  present 
obvious  dangers,  and  among  them  the  fatal  temptation 
to  borrow  a  ready-made  uniform  which  does  not  fit. 
Small  states  may  fall  into  this  pitfall  as  well  as  big 
ones,  but  at  least  their  continued  existence  presents 
some  guarantee  for  diversity  of  life  and  intellectual 
adventure  in  a  world  steadily  becoming  more  monot- 
onously drab  in  its  outer  garment  of  economic  circum- 
stance. 

No  historical  state  can  be  driven  out  of  its  identity 
without  suffering  a  moral  impoverishment  in  the 
process.  The  evil  is  not  only  apparent  in  the  embitter- 
ment  and  lowering  of  the  citizens  of  the  conquered 
community,  whether  they  are  compelled  to  the  agonies 
of  a  Polish  dispersion,  or  linger  on  nursing  their  rights 
and  wounded  pride  in  the  scene  of  their  former  inde- 


THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES 

pendency  but  it  creates  a  problem  for  the  conqueror 
which  may  very  well  harden  and  brutalize  his  whole 
outlook  on  policy.  It  is  never  good  for  a  nation  to  be 
driven  to  the  employment  of  harsh  measures  against 
any  portion  of  its  subjects. 

Upon  whatever  plausible  grounds  of  immediate 
expediency  such  measures  may  be  justified,  they 
invariably  harden  the  tone  of  political  opinion,  and 
create  an  atmosphere  of  insensibility  which  spreads  far 
beyond  the  sphere  of  the  special  case  and  occasion. 
The  acquisition  of  Alsace-Lorraine  by  Germany  is  a 
case  in  point.  The  result  of  the  forcible  incorporation 
of  these  provinces  in  the  German  Empire  has  been 
bad  for  the  governed  and  equally  bad  for  the  governors. 
Coercion  is  a  virus  which  cannot  be  introduced  into  any 
part  of  the  body  politic  without  risk  of  a  general  dif- 
fusion of  the  poison. 

It  is  no  idle  fancy  to  suppose  that  the  kind  of  policy 
which  the  Prussian  Government  has  thought  fit  to 
adopt  toward  the  alien  nationalities  of  the  German 
Empire  has  reacted  upon  its  treatment  of  those  German 
parties  whose  views  do  not  accord  with  the  strict  official 
convention.  No  Conservative  English  statesman  would 
ever  dream  of  denouncing  English  socialists  as  Prince 
von  Billow  denounces  the  social  democrats  of  Germany. 
But  then  no  English  statesman,  Liberal  or  Conservative, 
would  dream  of  treating  any  portion  of  the  British 
Empire  as  Prince  von  Billow  treated  the  German 
Poles. 

It  is  impossible  accurately  to  assess  the  value  to 
a  nation  of  the  self-esteem  which  is  the  legacy  of  its 
history.  People  who  weigh  everything  in  material 


THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES        263 

scales  may  find  nothing  worth  preserving  in  the  his- 
torical consciousness  of  the  small  nations  of  Europe. 
They  will  argue  that  the  Dutch,  the  Belgians,  the 
Danes,  the  Swiss,  might  be  incorporated  in  the  German 
Empire  not  only  without  pain  but  with  a  positive  ac- 
cession of  material  comfort  and  wealth,  and  a  larger 
political  outlook  in  the  future. 

They  will  even  deny  that  there  need  be  any  moral 
impoverishment  in  an  exchange  of  historical  memories, 
under  which  the  incorporated  Dutchman  would  hook 
himself  on  to  the  German  pedigree  and  count  Bis- 
marck and  Moltke  among  his  deities,  while  the  Dutch 
sea-dogs  of  the  heroic  age  would  give  their  names  to 
the  cruisers  and  submarines  of  the  incorporating 
Empire.  In  all  such  reasoning  there  is  very  little 
allowance  for  the  facts  of  human  nature  or  for  the 
working  of  the  moral  principle  in  man.  As  no  individual 
can  break  violently  with  his  past  without  a  moral 
lesion,  so,  too,  the  rupture  of  the  historical  continuity 
of  a  state  carries  with  it  an  inevitable  weakening  and 
abasement  of  public  ideals,  which  may  continue  for 
several  generations.  We  need  not  labour  to  establish 
a  principle  which  is  grounded  on  such  obvious  facts  of 
individual  consciousness.  But  one  historical  instance 
may  be  adduced  in  support.  When  in  1580  Portugal 
was  annexed  to  Spain,  then  reputed  to  be  the  most 
formidable  empire  in  the  world,  she  suffered  a  moral  as 
well  as  a  political  eclipse  from  which  she  has  never 
since  recovered.  Her  nerve  seemed  to  go  and  by  swift 
stages  she  sank  into  listlessness  and  decay. 

Nowhere  is  the  shaping  power  of  this  historical  con- 
sciousness more  evident  than  in  the  peasant  nations  of 


264        THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES 

the  Balkan  Peninsula.  These  rude  and  valiant  democ- 
racies live  upon  the  memories  of  the  past  to  an  extent 
of  which  sophisticated  peoples  have  little  notion.  The 
great  ballad  which  commemorates  the  battle  of  Kossovo 
fought  against  the  Turks  more  than  five  hundred  years 
ago,  is  still  one  of  the  most  important  political  influences 
among  the  southern  Slavs.  Nor  has  the  memory  of  the 
empire  of  Stephen  Dushan,  under  whom  Serbia  was 
the  leading  Power  in  the  Balkans,  ever  been  allowed  to 
fade  among  the  Serbs,  despite  tragedies  sufficient  to 
break  the  spirit  of  a  less  stalwart  race.  To  rob  the 
Serbs  of  their  political  independence  according  to  the 
present  plan  of  the  German  Powers  would  be  a  measure 
difficult  to  surpass  for  cruel  and  purposeless  futility. 
A  race  which  had  succeeded  in  preserving  its  historical 
consciousness  through  centuries  of  grinding  Turkish 
tyranny  would  not  be  likely  to  renounce  its  past  or  its 
future  under  the  guns  of  Austria.  And  even  if  the 
improbable  came  to  pass,  and  a  conquered  Serbia  were 
to  become  an  obedient  and  contented  fraction  of  the 
Austrian  Empire,  forgetful  of  heroic  ballads  and  of 
a  long  tradition  of  hardiness  and  valour,  would  there 
be  no  loss  of  moral  power  in  the  process?  To  those 
who  measure  all  virtues  by  the  standard  of  civic  virtue, 
by  intensity  of  emotional  and  practical  patriotism,  the 
loss  would  be  beyond  dispute.  A  great  incentive  to 
the  performance  of  unselfish  action  would  be  destroyed, 
a  source  of  heroic  and  congenial  activity  would  dis- 
appear never  to  be  replaced.  Under  the  hypothesis 
the  Serbs  would  sink  below  the  level  of  their  blood 
kinsmen  the  Slovaks,  who,  despite  the  manifold  oppres- 
sions of  their  Hungarian  masters,  still  nurture  a  flame 


THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES        265 

of  protesting  nationalism.  From  such  political  apostasy 
no  nation  could  ever  expect  to  make  a  complete  moral 
recovery. 

It  may  be  objected  that  the  whole  process  of  Euro- 
pean history  is  summed  up  by  the  absorption  of  the 
smaller  in  the  larger  states;  and  that  if  Hanover  is 
reconciled  to  absorption  there  is  no  reason  why  Holland, 
Denmark,  and  Belgium  should  lodge  a  protest  in  ad- 
vance against  their  impending  fate.  *  To  this  conten- 
tion there  is  a  simple  answer.  These  outlying  nations 
can  only  be  brought  into  the  German  fold  under  com- 
pulsion. Their  frame  of  mind  is  not  German,  their 
habits  are  not  German,  their  history  for  the  last  four 
centuries  has  served  to  multiply  points  of  difference 
from  Germany.  They  have  no  desire  to  submit  them- 
selves either  to  the  military  or  to  the  financial  system  of 
the  German  Empire.  They  are  not  ashamed  of  their 
present  condition,  and  are  singular  enough  to  hold 
that  human  happiness  and  goodness  do  not  depend 
upon  the  size  of  an  army  or  navy  or  a  budget.  It  is 
enough  that  the  citizen  of  each  of  these  states  can 
call  his  country  his  own.  Patriotism  has  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  spatial  extent  nor  are  emotions 
to  be  measured  by  square  miles.  Great  empires  are 
generally  full  of  the  variances  of  unassimilated  and 
discontented  men;  and  though  a  country  may  be 
weak  and  small,  it  may  yet  be  capable  of  inspiring 
among  its  inhabitants  the  noblest  and  purest  forms  of 
affectionate  devotion. 

Indeed,  the  supreme  touchstone  of  efficiency  in  im- 
perial government  lies  in  its  capacity  to  preserve  the 
small  state  in  the  great  union.  If  the  British  Empire 


266        THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES 

has  succeeded  in  retaining  the  affections  of  its  scattered 
members,  the  result  has  been  due  to  the  wise  and  easy 
tolerance  which  has  permitted  almost  every  form  of 
religious,  political,  and  social  practice  to  continue 
unchecked,  however  greatly  they  may  vary  from  the 
established  traditions  of  the  English  race.  Thus  in  the 
Province  of  Quebec  we  suffer  the  existence  of  a  French 
ultramontane  state  based  on  the  philosophy  of  St. 
Thomas  Aquinas,  and  preserving  even  to  this  day 
many  of  the  social  features  of  a  French  colony  in  the 
age  of  Louis  XIV,  a  community  more  extreme  in  its 
ecclesiastical  rigour  than  any  Roman  Catholic  state 
in  Europe,  and  in  language,  religion,  and  social  habits 
presenting  the  sharpest  contrast  to  the  English  prov- 
inces of  the  Dominion  of  Canada.  The  same  careful 
deference  to  the  preexisting  conditions  is  shown  in 
every  part  of  our  Indian  administration,  which  carries 
tenderness  to  the  religious  scruples  of  the  Moham- 
medans and  the  Hindus  to  a  point  of  delicate  solicitude, 
which  no  Government  in  the  world  has  ever  before 
attempted,  and  only  the  most  practised  experience 
can  supply.  These,  however,  are  not  the  methods  of 
the  German  Empire,  nor  can  they  be  the  methods  of 
any  empire  which  practises  a  uniform  and  universal 
system  of  military  conscription  As  soon  as  the  words 
State  and  Army  become  coterminous,  a  philosophy  of 
violent  unification  is  set  up  within  the  body  politic, 
which  sooner  or  later  carries  everything  before  it, 
save  the  spiritual  forces  which  cannot  be  broken  by 
any  machinery,  however  despotic  and  powerful.  The 
Germans  have  not  succeeded  in  winning  either  the 
Poles  or  the  Danes  or  the  Alsatians  to  their  rule, 


THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES    267 

because  they  have  repeated  the  mistake  which  England 
made  in  Ireland  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  cen- 
turies, and  which  England  has  never  since  ceased  to 
lament.  They  have  attempted  to  manufacture  German 
citizens  by  violence;  and  the  history  of  Alsace-Lorraine 
under  imperial  rule  has  shown  how  little  the  policy  of 
violence,  however  carefully  it  may  be  masked  by 
specious  political  concessions,  is  availing  to  change  the 
spiritual  allegiance  of  a  people.  Indeed  the  case  of 
Alsace-Lorraine  supplies  a  fair  indication  of  the  mis- 
fortunes which  would  ensue  upon  the  compulsory 
annexation  of  any  one  of  the  small  states  of  Europe  by 
a  big  military  Power.  It  is  not  to  be  imagined  that 
the  forced  union  of  these  two  provinces  with  Germany 
has  been  productive  of  material  injury.  On  the  con- 
trary, they  have  shared  in  the  expanding  industry  and 
commerce  of  the  Empire,  and  any  loss  in  population 
due  to  the  emigration  of  the  French  has  been  more 
than  compensated  by  an  influx  of  Germans.  Never- 
theless, they  have  been  and  continue  to  be  unhappy 
under  the  Prussian  yoke,  Alsace  more  unhappy  than 
Lorraine,  but  both  sensible  of  the  fact  that  while 
material  interest  binds  them  to  Prussia,  the  voice  of 
spiritual  affinity  unites  them  with  the  French  Re- 
public. 

Statistics  indeed  prove  that,  even  allowing  for  immi- 
gration, the  Germans  are  still  in  a  minority  in  the 
two  provinces;  but  this  fact  in  itself  is  not  sufficient  to 
account  for  the  continuing  attraction  of  the  French 
Republic,  despite  the  strong  material  inducements 
offered  from  the  other  side.  The  phenomenon  indeed 
is  worthy  of  attention.  Here  are  two  provinces  which 


268        THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES 

have  never  enjoyed  political  independence  or  the  sense 
of  cohesion  which  such  independence  confers.  For  the 
greater  part  of  their  history  they  have  counted  as 
members  of  the  German  confederation;  for  Alsace  only 
became  part  of  France  in  1648,  and  Lorraine  was  not 
effectively  incorporated  in  the  French  monarchy  till 
1764.  And  yet,  though  they  have  been  replaced  in 
their  original  German  connection,  the  natives  remain 
French  at  heart.  The  explanation  is  simple.  The 
French  Revolution  initiated  these  two  provinces  into 
the  democratic  ideals  of  the  modern  world,  which  the 
majority  of  the  inhabitants  still  continue  to  prefer  to 
the  Prussian  doctrine  of  blood  and  iron  and  to  the 
methods  of  the  Prussian  garrison  at  Zabern. 

The  truth  is  that  the  quantitative  estimate  of  human 
values,  which  plays  so  large  a  part  in  modern  political 
history,  is  radically  false  and  tends  to  give  a  vulgar 
instead  of  a  liberal  and  elevated  turn  to  public  ambi- 
tions. There  is  no  virtue,  public  or  private,  which 
cannot  be  practised  as  fully  in  a  small  and  weak  state  as 
under  the  sceptre  of  the  most  formidable  tyrant  who 
ever  drove  fifty  army  corps  of  conscripts  to  the  slaughter. 
There  is  no  grace  of  soul,  no  disinterested  endeavour  of 
mind,  no  pitch  of  unobtrusive  self-sacrifice  of  which  the 
members  of  small  and  pacific  communities  have  not 
repeatedly  shown  themselves  to  be  capable.  These 
virtues  indeed  may  be  imperilled  by  lethargy,  but  they 
are  threatened  even  more  gravely  by  that  absorbing 
preoccupation  with  the  facts  of  material  power  in  which 
the  citizens  of  great  empires  are  inevitably  involved. 

The  great  danger  of  Continental  Europe  is  not  revo- 
lution but  servitude.  This  war  could  never  have  been 


THE  VALUE  OF  SMALL  STATES        269 

possible  if  the  intellect  of  Germany  had  been  really 
free,  if  a  servile  Press  supported  by  a  system  of  State 
universities  had  not  instilled  into  the  vast  mass  of  the 
German  people  ruthless  maxims  of  Csesarism,  for  the 
most  part  repugnant  to  their  real  temperament  and 
nature.  There  are  other  military  autocracies  besides 
Germany,  and  other  countries  in  which  political  thought 
is  fettered  by  the  Government.  But  whatever  may  be 
their  several  shortcomings,  the  smaller  states  of  Europe 
are  not  among  the  despots.  Here  at  least  men  may 
think  what  they  please,  and  write  what  they  think. 
Whenever  the  small  states  may  come  up  for  judgment 
the  advocate  of  human  freedom  will  plead  on  their 
behalf. 


XIII 

THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR 


XIII 
THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR* 


"Not  much  news:  Great  Britain  has  declared  war 
on  Austria."  The  words  fell  quite  simply,  and  with 
no  intention  of  irony,  from  the  lips  of  a  friend  of  mine 
who  picked  up  the  newspaper  on  the  day  when  I  began 
to  write  down  these  thoughts,  August  13.  So  amazingly 
had  the  world  changed  since  the  4th.  And  it  has 
changed  even  more  by  the  time  when  I  revise  the 
proofs. 

During  the  month  of  July  and  earlier,  English  politics 
were  by  no  means  dull.  For  my  own  part,  my  mind 
was  profoundly  occupied  with  a  number  of  public 
questions  and  causes:  the  whole  maintenance  of  law 
and  democratic  government  seemed  to  be  threatened, 
not  to  speak  of  social  reform  and  the  great  self -redeem- 
ing movements  of  the  working  class.  In  the  forefront 
came  anxiety  for  Home  Rule  and  the  Parliament  Act, 
and  a  growing  indignation  against  various  classes  of 
"wreckers";  those  reactionaries  who  seemed  to  be 
playing  with  rebellion,  playing  with  militarism,  reck- 
lessly inflaming  the  party  spirit  of  minorities  so  as  to 
make  parliamentary  government  impossible;  those 
revolutionaries  who  were  openly  preaching  the  class 

*Reprinted,  by  kind  permission  of  the  editor,  from  The  Hibbert  Journal  for 
October,  1914. 


274  THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR 

war  and  urging  the  working  man  to  mistrust  his  own 
leaders  and  representatives  and  believe  in  nothing  but 
some  helpless  gospel  of  hate. 

And  now  that  is  all  swept  away.  We  think  no  more 
of  our  great  causes,  and  we  think  no  more  of  our  mutual 
hatreds.  Good  and  evil  come  together.  Our  higher 
ideals  are  forgotten,  but  we  are  a  band  of  brothers 
standing  side  by  side. 

This  is  a  great  thing.  The  fine  instinctive  generosity 
with  which  the  House  of  Commons,  from  Mr.  Bonar 
Law  to  Mr.  Redmond,  rose  to  the  crisis  has  spread  an 
impulse  over  the  country.  There  is  a  bond  of  fellow- 
ship between  Englishmen  who  before  had  no  meeting- 
ground.  In  time  past  I  have  sornetioies  envied  the 
working  men  who  can  simply  hail  a  stranger  as  "mate" : 
we  dons  and  men  of  letters  seem  in  ordinary  times  to 
have  no  "mates"  and  no  gift  for  getting  them.  But 
the  ice  between  man  and  man  is  broken  now. 

I  think,  too,  that  the  feeling  between  different  classes 
must  have  softened.  Rich  business  men,  whom  I  can 
remember  a  short  time  ago  tediously  eloquent  on  the 
vices  of  trades  unionists  and  of  the  working  classes  in 
general,  are  now  instantly  and  without  hesitation 
making  large  sacrifices  and  facing  heavy  risks  to  see 
that  as  few  men  as  possible  shall  be  thrown  out  of 
work,  and  that  no  women  and  children  shall  starve. 
And  working  men  who  have  not  money  to  give  are 
giving  more  than  money,  and  giving  it  without  question 
or  grudge.  Thank  God,  we  did  not  hate  each  other  as 
much  as  we  imagined;  or  else,  while  the  hatred  was 
real  enough  on  the  surface,  at  the  back  of  our  minds 
we  loved  each  other  more. 


THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR  275 

And  the  band  of  brothers  is  greater  and  wider  than 
any  of  us  dared  to  believe.  Many  English  hearts  must 
have  swelled  with  almost  incredulous  gratitude  to  hear 
of  the  messages  and  the  gifts  which  come  flooding  in 
from  all  the  dominions  overseas:  the  gold,  the  grain, 
the  sugar,  the  tobacco;  its  special  produce  coming 
from  each  State,  and  from  all  of  them  throngs  of  young 
men  offering  their  strength  and  their  life-blood.  And 
India  above  all!  One  who  has  cared  much  about 
India  and  has  friends  among  Indian  Nationalists  cannot 
read  with  dry  eyes  the  messages  that  come  from  all 
races  and  creeds  of  India,  from  Hindu  and  Moslem 
societies,  from  princes  and  holy  men  and  even  political 
exiles.  .  .  .  We  have  not  always  been  sympathetic 
in  our  government  of  India;  we  have  not  always  been 
wise.  But  we  have  tried  to  be  just;  and  we  have 
given  to  India  the  best  work  of  our  best  men.  It  would 
have  been  hard  on  us  if  India  had  shown  no  loyalty 
at  all;  but  she  has  g  ven  us  more  than  we  deserved, 
more  than  we  should  have  dared  to  claim.  Neither 
Indian  nor  Englishman  can  forget  it. 

ii 

And  there  is  something  else.  Travellers  who  have 
returned  from  France  or  Belgium — or  Germany  for 
that  matter — tell  us  of  the  unhesitating  heroism  with 
which  the  ordinary  men  and  women  are  giving  them- 
selves to  the  cause  of  their  nation.  A  friend  of  mine 
heard  the  words  of  one  Frenchwoman  to  another 
who  was  seeing  her  husband's  train  off  to  the  front: 
"  Ne  pleurez  pas,  il  vous  voit  encore."  When  he  was 
out  of  sight  the  tears  might  come!  .  .  .  Not 


276  THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR 

thousands  but  millions  of  women  are  saying  words 
like  that  to  themselves,  and  millions  of  men  going  out 
to  face  death. 

We  in  England  have  not  yet  been  put  to  the  same 
test  as  France  and  Belgium.  We  are  in  the  flush  of 
our  first  emotion;  we  have  not  yet  had  our  nerves 
shaken  by  advancing  armies,  or  our  endurance  ground 
down  by  financial  distress  But,  as  far  as  I  can  judge 
of  the  feelings  of  people  whom  I  meet,  they  seem  to 
me  to  be  ready  to  answer  any  call  that  comes.  We 
ask  for  200,000  recruits  and  receive  300,000,  for  half 
a  million  and  we  receive  three  quarters.  We  ask  for 
more  still,  and  the  recruiting  offices  are  overflowing. 
They  cannot  cope  with  the  crowds  of  young  men  who 
cheerfully  wait  their  turn  at  the  office  doors  or  on  the 
pavement,  while  fierce  old  gentlemen  continue  to  scold 
them  in  the  newspapers.  Certainly  we  are  a  quaint 
*  people. 

And  in  the  field!  A  non-combatant  stands  humbled 
before  the  wonderful  story  of  the  retreat  from  Mons— 
the  gallantry,  the  splendid  skill,  the  mutual  confidence 
of  all  ranks,  the  absolute  faithfulness.  One  hardly  dares 
praise  such  deeds;  one  admires  them  in  silence.  And 
it  is  not  the  worshippers  of  war  who  have  done  this; 
it  is  we,  the  good-natured,  un-militarist,  ultra-liberal 
people,  the  nation  of  humanitarians  and  shopkeepers. 

Our  army,  indeed,  is  a  professional  army.  What  the 
French  and  the  Belgians  have  done  is  an  even  more 
significant  fact  for  civilization.  It  shows  that  the  cul- 
tured, progressive,  easy-living,  peace-loving  nations  of 
western  Europe  are  not  corrupted,  at  least  as  far  as 
courage  goes.  The  world  has  just  seen  them,  bourgeois 


THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR  277 

and  working  men,  clerks,  schoolmasters,  musicians, 
grocers,  ready  in  a  moment  when  the  call  came;  able 
to  march  and  fight  for  long  days  of  scorching  sun  or 
icy  rain;  willing,  if  need  be,  to  die  for  their  homes 
and  countries,  with  no  panic,  no  softening  of  the  fibre 
.  .  .  resolute  to  face  death  and  to  kill. 

in 

For  there  is  that  side  of  it,  too.  We  have  now 
not  only  to  strain  every  nerve  to  help  our  friend — we 
must  strain  every  nerve  also  to  injure  our  enemy. 
This  is  horrible,  but  we  must  try  to  face  the  truth. 
For  my  own  part,  I  find  that  I  do  desperately  desire 
to  hear  of  German  dreadnoughts  sunk  in  the  North 
Sea.  Mines  are  treacherous  engines  of  'death;  but 
I  should  be  only  too  glad  to  help  in  laying  a  mine  for 
them.  When  I  see  one  day  that  20, 000  .Germans  have 
been  killed  in  such-and-such  an  engagement,  and  next 
day  that  it  was  only  2,000,  I  am  sorry. 

That  is  where  we  are.  We  are  fighting  for  that  which 
we  love,  whatever  we  call  it.  It  is  the  right,  but  it 
is  something  even  more  than  the.  right.  For  our  lives, 
for  England,  for  the  liberty  of  western  Europe,  for  the 
possibility  of  peace  and  friendship  between  nations; 
for  something  which  we  should  rather  die  than  lose. 
And  lose  it  we  sVll  unless  we  can  beat  the  Germans.  ' 

IV 

Yet  I  have  scarcely  met  a  single  person  who  seems 
to  hate  the  Germans.  We  abominate  their  dishonest 
Government,  their  unscrupulous  and  arrogant  diplo- 
macy, the  whole  spirit  of  blood-and-iron  ambition 


278  THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR 

which  seems  to  have  spread  from  Prussia  through 
a  great  part  of  the  nation,  but  not  the  people  in  general. 
They,  too,  by  whatever  criminal  folly  they  were  led 
into  war,  are  fighting  now  for  what  they  call  the 
right.  For  their  lives  and  homes  and  their  national 
pride,  for  that  strange  Culture,  that  idol  of  blood 
and  clay  and  true  gold,  which  they  have  built  up 
with  so  many  tears.  They  have  been  trebly  deceived: 
deceived  by  their  Government,  deceived  by  their  own 
idolatry,  deceived  by  their  sheer  terror.  They  are 
ringed  about  by  enemies;  their  one  ally  is  broken; 
they  hear  the  thunder  of  Cossack  hoofs  in  the  east 
coming  ever  closer;  and  hordes  of  stupid  moujiks 
behind  them,  innumerable,  clumsy,  barbarous,  as  they 
imagine  in  their  shuddering  dread,  treading  down  the 
beloved  fatherland  as  they  come.  .  .  .  What  do 
Germans  care  for  punctilios  and  neutrality  treaties  in 
the  face  of  such  a  horror  as  that? 

No:  we  cannot  hate  or  blame  the  people  in  general. 
And  certainly  not  the  individual  Germans  whom  we 
know.  I  have  just  by  me  a  letter  from  young  Fritz 
Hackmann,  who  was  in  Oxford  last  term  and  brought 
me  an  introduction  from  a  Greek  scholar  in  Berlin: 
a  charming  letter,  full  of  gratitude  for  the  very  small 
friendliness  I  had  been  able  to  show  him.  I  remember 
his  sunny  smile  and  his  bow  with  a  click  of  the  heels. 
He  is  now  fighting  us.  .  .  .  And  there  is  Paul 
Maass,  too,  a  young  Doctor  of  Philosophy,  recently 
married.  He  sent  me  a  short  time  back  the  photo- 
graph of  his  baby,  Ulf,  and  we  exchanged  small  jokes 
about  Ulf's  look  of  wisdom  and  his  knowledge  of  Greek 
and  his  imperious  habits.  And  now  of  course  Maass  is 


THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR  279 

with  his  regiment,  and  we  shall  do  our  best  to  kill 
him,  and  after  that  to  starve  Ulf  and  Ulf's  mother. 

It  is  well  for  us  to  remember  what  war  means  when 
reduced  to  terms  of  private  human  life.  Doubtless 
we  have  most  of  us  met  disagreeable  Germans  and  been 
angry  with  them;  but  I  doubt  if  we  ever  wanted  to 
cut  their  throats  or  blow  them  to  pieces  with  lyddite. 
And  many  thousands  of  us  have  German  friends,  or 
have  come  across  good  straight  Germans  in  business, 
or  have  carried  on  smiling  and  incompetent  conversa- 
tions with  kindly  German  peasants  on  walking  tours. 
We  must  remember  such  things  as  these,  and  not  hate 
the  Germans. 

"A  little  later  it  may  be  different.  In  a  few  weeks 
English  and  Germans  will  have  done  each  other  cruel 
and  irreparable  wrongs.  The  blood  of  those  we  love 
will  lie  between  us.  We  shall  hear  stories  of  horrible 
suffering.  Atrocities  will  be  committed  by  a  few  bad 
or  stupid  people  on  both  sides,  and  will  be  published 
and  distorted  and  magnified.  It  will  be  hard  to  avoid 
hatred  then;  so  it  is  well  to  try  to  think  things  out 
while  our  minds  are  still  clear,  while  we  still  hate  the 
war  and  not  the  enemy." 

So  I  wrote  three  weeks  ago.  By  the  time  I  revise 
these  lines  the  prophecy  has  been  more  than  fulfilled. 
No  one  had  anticipated  then  that  the  nightmare  doc- 
trines of  Bismarck  and  Nietzsche  and  Bernhardi  would 
be  actually  enforced  by  official  orders.  "  Cause  to  non- 
combatants  the  maximum  of  suffering:  leave  the 
women  and  children  nothing  but  their  eyes  to  weep 
with.  .  .  ."  We  thought  they  said  these  things 
just  to  startle  and  shock  us;  and  it  now  appears  that 


280  THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR 

some  of  them  meant  what  they  said.  .  .  .  Still 
we  must  not  hate  the  German  people.  Who  knows  how 
many  secret  acts  of  mercy,  mercy  at  risk  of  life  and 
against  orders,  were  done  at  Louvain  and  Dinant? 
Germans  are  not  demons;  they  are  naturally  fine  and 
good  people.  And  they  will  wake  from  their  evil 
dream. 


"Never  again!"  I  see  that  a  well-known  im- 
perialist writes  to  the  papers  saying  that  these  words 
should  be  embroidered  on  the  kit-bags  of  the  Royal 
Navy  and  painted  on  the  knapsacks  of  all  our  soldiers. 
The  aspiration  is  perhaps  too  bold,  for  "Never"  is 
a  very  large  word;  but  I  believe  it  is  the  real  aspira- 
tion of  most  civilized  men,  certainly  of  most  English- 
men. We  are  fighting  for  our  national  life,  for  our 
ideals  of  freedom  and  honest  government  and  fair 
dealing  between  nations:  but  most  men,  if  asked  what 
they  would  like  to  attain  at  the  end  of  this  war,  if  it 
is  successful,  would  probably  agree  in  their  answer. 
We  seek  no  territory,  no  aggrandizement,  no  revenge; 
we  only  want  to  be  safe  from  the  recurrence  of  this 
present  horror.  We  want  permanent  peace  for  Europe 
and  freedom  for  each  nation. 

What  is  the  way  to  attain  it?  The  writer  whom 
I  have  quoted  goes  on:  "The  war  must  not  end  until 
German  warships  are  sunk,  her  fortresses  razed  to  the 
ground,  her  army  disbanded,  her  munitions  destroyed, 
and  the  military  and  civil  bureaucrats  responsible  for 
opening  hell  gates  are  shot  or  exiled."  As  if  that 
would  bring  us  any  nearer  to  a  permanent  peace! 


THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR  281 

Crushing  Germany  would  do  no  good.  It  would 
point  straight  toward  a  war  of  revenge.  It  is  not 
Germany,  it  is  a  system,  that  needs  crushing.  Other 
nations  before  Germany  have  menaced  the  peace  of 
Europe,  and  other  nations  will  do  so  again  after  Ger- 
many, if  the  system  remains  the  same. 

VI 

It  is  interesting  to  look  back  at  the  records  of  the 
Congress  of  Vienna  in  1815,  at  the  end  of  the  last 
great  war  of  allied  Europe  against  a  military  despotism. 

It  was  hoped  then,  a  standard  historian  tells  us, 
"that  so  great  an  opportunity  would  not  be  lost,  but 
that  the  statesmen  would  initiate  such  measures  of 
international  disarmament  as  would  perpetuate  the 
blessings  of  that  peace  which  Europe  was  enjoying 
after  twenty  years  of  warfare."  Certain  Powers  wished 
to  use  the  occasion  for  crushing  and  humiliating  France; 
but  fortunately  they  did  not  carry  the  Congress  with 
them.  Talleyrand  persuaded  the  Congress  to  accept 
the  view  that  the  recent  wars  had  not  been  wars  of 
nations,  but  of  principles.  It  had  not  been  Austria, 
Russia,  Prussia,  England,  against  France;  it  had  been 
the  principle  of  legitimacy  against  all  that  was  illegiti- 
mate, treaty-breaking,  revolution,  usurpation.  Bona- 
partism  was  to  be  destroyed;  France  was  not  to  be 
injured. 

Castlereagh,  the  English  representative,  concentrated 
his  efforts  upon  two  great  objects.  The  first,  which  he 
just  failed  to  obtain,  owing  chiefly  to  difficulties  about 
Turkey,  was  a  really  effective  and  fully  armed  Concert 
of  Europe.  He  wished  for  a  united  guarantee  from  all 


THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR 

the  Powers  that  they  would  accept  the  settlement 
made  by  the  Congress  and  would,  in  future,  wage 
collective  war  against  the  first  breaker  of  the  peace. 
The  second  object,  which  he  succeeded  in  gaining,  was, 
curiously  enough,  an  international  declaration  of  the 
abolition  of  the  slave  trade. 

The  principle  of  legitimacy — of  ordinary  law  and 
right  and  custom — as  against  lawless  ambition:  a  con- 
cert of  Powers  pledged  by  collective  treaty  to  main- 
tain and  enforce  peace;  and  the  abolition  of  the  slave 
trade!  It  sounds  like  the  scheme  of  some  new  Utopia, 
and  it  was  really  a  main  part  of  the  political  programme 
of  the  leaders  of  the  Congress  of  Vienna — of  Castle- 
reagh,  Metternich,  Talleyrand,  Alexander  of  Russia, 
and  Frederick  William  of  Prussia.  .  .  .  They 
are  not  names  to  rouse  enthusiasm  nowadays.  All 
except  Talleyrand  were  confessed  enemies  of  freedom 
and  enlightenment  and  almost  everything  that  we 
regard  as  progressive;  and  Talleyrand,  though  oc- 
casionally on  the  right  side  in  such  matters,  was  not  a 
person  to  inspire  confidence.  Yet,  after  all,  they 
were  more  or  less  reasonable  human  beings,  and  a 
bitter  experience  had  educated  them.  Doubtless  they 
blundered;  they  went  on  all  kinds  of  wrong  principles; 
they  based  their  partition  of  Europe  on  what  they 
called  "legitimacy" — a  perfectly  artificial  and  false 
legitimacy,  rather  than  nationality;  they  loathed  and 
dreaded  popular  movements;  they  could  not  quite 
keep  their  hands  from  a  certain  amount  of  picking 
and  stealing.  Yet,  on  the  whole,  we  find  these  men 
at  the  end  of  the  great  war  fixing  their  minds  not  on 
glory  and  prestige  and  revenge,  not  on  conventions 


THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR  288 

and  shams,  but  on  ideals  so  great  and  true  and  humane 
and  simple  that  most  Englishmen  in  ordinary  life 
are  ashamed  of  mentioning  them;  trying  hard  to  make 
peace  permanent  on  the  basis  of  what  was  recognized 
as  legitimate  or  fair;  and,  amid  many  differences, 
agreeing  at  least  in  the  universal  abolition  of  the 
slave  trade. 

VII 

Our  next  conference  of  Europe  ought  to  do  far 
better  if  only  we  can  be  sure  that  it  will  meet  in  the 
same  high  spirit.  Instead  of  Castlereagh,  we  shall 
send  from  England  some  one  like  Mr.  Asquith  or  Sir 
Edward  Grey,  with  ten  times  more  progressive  and 
liberal  feeling  and  ten  times  more  insight  and  under- 
standing. Even  suppose  we  send  a  Conservative, 
Mr.  Balfour  or  Lord  Lansdowne,  the  advance  upon 
Castlereagh  will  be  almost  as  great.  Instead  of  Talley- 
rand, France  will  send  one  of  her  many  able  republican 
leaders,  from  Clemenceau  to  Delcasse,  certainly  more 
honest  and  humane  than  Talleyrand.  And  Germany, 
who  can  say?  Except  that  it  may  be  some  one  very 
different  from  these  militarist  schemers  who  have 
brought  their  country  to  ruin.  In  any  case  it  is  likely 
to  be  a  wiser  man  than  Frederick  William,  just  as 
Russia  is  bound  to  send  a  wiser  man  than  Alexander. 

And  behind  these  representatives  there  will  be 
a  deeper  and  far  more  intelligent  feeling  in  the  various 
peoples.  In  1815  the  nations  were  sick  of  war  after 
long  fighting.  I  doubt  if  there  was  any  widespread 
conviction  that  war  was  in  itself  an  abomination  and 
an  outrage  on  humanity.  Philosophers  felt  it,  some 


284  THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR 

inarticulate  women  and  peasants  and  workmen  felt 
it.  But  now  such  a  feeling  is  almost  universal.  It 
commands  a  majority  in  any  third-class  railway  car- 
riage; it  is  expressed  almost  as  a  matter  of  course  in 
the  average  newspaper. 

Between  Waterloo  and  the  present  day  there  has 
passed  one  of  the  greatest  and  most  swiftly  progressive 
centuries  of  all  human  history,  and  the  heart  of  Europe 
is  really  changed.  I  do  not  say  we  shall  not  have 
Jingo  crowds  or  that  our  own  hearts  will  not  thrill 
with  the  various  emotions  of  war,  whether  base  or 
noble.  But  there  is  a  change.  Ideas  that  once  be- 
longed to  a  few  philosophers  have  sunk  into  common 
men's  minds;  Tolstoy  has  taught  us,  the  intimate 
records  of  modern  wars  have  taught  us,  free  intercourse 
with  foreigners  has  educated  us,  even  the  illustrated 
papers  have  made  us  realize  things.  In  1914  it  is  not 
that  we  happen  to  be  sick  of  war;  it  is  that  we  mean 
to  extirpate  war  out  of  the  normal  possibilities  of  civil- 
ized life,  as  we  have  extirpated  leprosy  and  typhus. 

VIII 

What  kind  of  settlement  can  we  hope  to  attain  at 
the  end  of  it  all? 

The  question  is  still  far  off,  and  may  have  assumed 
astonishingly  different  shapes  by  the  time  we  reach  it, 
but  it  is  perhaps  well  to  try,  now  while  we  are  calm  and 
unhurt,  to  think  out  what  we  would  most  desire. 

First  of  all,  no  revenge,  no  deliberate  humiliation  of 
any  enemy,  no  picking  and  stealing. 

Next,  a  drastic  resettlement  of  all  those  burning 
problems  which  carry  in  them  the  seeds  of  European 


THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR  285 

war,  especially  the  problems  of  territory.  Many  of  the 
details  will  be  very  difficult;  some  may  prove  insoluble. 
But  in  general  we  must  try  to  arrange,  even  at  consider- 
able cost,  that  territory  goes  with  nationality.  The 
annexation  of  Alsace-Lorraine  has  disturbed  the  west 
of  Europe  for  forty  years;  the  wrong  distributions  of 
territory  in  the  Balkan  peninsula  have  kept  the  spark 
of  war  constantly  alive  in  the  east,  and  have  not  been 
fully  corrected  by  the  last  Balkan  settlement.  Every 
nation  which  sees  a  slice  of  itself  cut  off  and  held  under 
foreign  rule  is  a  danger  to  peace,  and  so  is  every  nation 
that  holds  by  force  or  fraud  an  alien  province.  At  this 
moment,  if  Austria  had  not  annexed  some  millions  of 
Servians  in  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  she  would  have  no 
mortal  quarrel  with  Servia.  Any  drastic  rearrange- 
ment of  this  sort  will  probably  involve  the  break-up  of 
Austria,  a  larger  Italy,  a  larger  Servia,  a  larger  Germany 
—for  the  loss  of  Alsace-Lorraine,  of  Danish  Schleswig, 
and  the  Polish  provinces  would  be  more  than  com- 
pensated by  the  accession  of  the  Germanic  parts  of 
Austria — and  a  larger  Russia.  But  it  is  not  big  na- 
tions that  are  a  menace  to  peace;  it  is  nations  with  a 
grievance  or  nations  who  know  that  others  have  a 
grievance  against  them. 

And  shall  we  try  again  to  achieve  Castlereagh's  and 
Alexander's  ideal  of  a  permanent  Concert,  pledged  to 
make  collective  war  upon  the  peace-breaker?  Surely 
we  must.  We  must  at  all  costs  and  in  spite  of  all 
difficulties,  because  the  alternative  means  such  un- 
speakable failure.  We  must  learn  to  agree,  we  civilized 
nations  of  Europe,  or  else  we  must  perish.  I  believe 
that  the  chief  counsel  of  wisdom  here  is  to  be  sure  to 


286  THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR 

go  far  enough.  We  need  a  permanent  Concert,  perhaps 
a  permanent  Common  Council,  in  which  every  awkward 
problem  can  be  dealt  with  before  it  has  time  to  grow 
dangerous,  and  in  which  outvoted  minorities  must 
accustom  themselves  to  giving  way.  If  we  examine 
the  failures  of  the  European  Concert  in  recent  years 
we  shall  find  them  generally  due  to  two  large  causes. 
Either  some  Powers  came  into  the  council  with  unclean 
hands,  determined  to  grab  alien  territory  or  fatally 
compromised  because  they  had  grabbed  it  in  the  past; 
or  else  they  met  too  late,  when  the  air  was  full  of  mis- 
trust, and  not  to  yield  had  become  a  point  of  honour. 
Once  make  certain  of  good  faith  and  a  clean  start,  and 
surely  there  is  in  the  great  Powers  of  Europe  sufficient 
unity  of  view  and  feeling  about  fundamental  matters 
to  make  it  possible  for  them  to  work  honestly  together 
— at  any  rate,  when  the  alternative  is  stark  ruin. 
.  .  .  It  is  well  to  remember  that  in  this  matter,  from 
Alexander  I  onward,  Russia  has  steadily  done  her  best 
to  lead  the  way. 

And  the  abolition  of  the  slave  trade !  It  is  wonderful 
to  think  that  that  was  not  only  talked  about  but  really 
achieved;  the  greatest  abomination  in  the  world 
definitely  killed,  finished  and  buried,  never  to  return, 
as  a  result  of  the  meeting  of  the  Powers  at  the  end  of 
the  great  war.  What  can  we  hope  for  to  equal  that? 
The  limitation  of  armaments  seems  almost  small  in 
comparison. 

We  saw  in  the  first  week  of  the  war  what  a  nation 
and  a  government  can  do  when  the  need  or  the  oppor- 
tunity comes.  Armies  and  fleets  mobilized,  war  risks 
assured,  railways  taken  over,  prices  fixed  .  .  . 


THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR  287 

things  that  seemed  almost  impossible  accomplished 
successfully  in  a  few  days.  One  sentence  in  Mr.  Lloyd 
George's  speech  on  the  financial  situation  ran  thus,  if  I 
remember  the  words:  "This  part  of  the  subject  pre- 
sents some  peculiar  difficulties,  but  I  have  no  doubt 
they  will  be  surmounted  with  the  utmost  ease."  That 
is  the  spirit  in  which  our  Government  has  risen  to  its 
crisis,  a  spirit  not  of  shallow  optimism  but  of  that 
active  and  hard  thinking  confidence  which  creates  its 
own  fulfilment.  The  power  of  man  over  circumstance 
is  now — even  now  in  the  midst  of  this  one  terrific 
failure — immeasurably  greater  than  it  has  ever  yet 
been  in  history.  Every  year  that  passes  has  shown 
its  increase.  When  the  next  settling  day  comes  the 
real  will  of  reasonable  man  should  be  able  to  assert 
itself  and  achieve  its  end  with  a  completeness  not  con- 
ceivable in  1915. 

IX 

This  is  not  the  time  to  make  any  definite  proposals. 
Civilization  has  still  many  slave  trades  to  abolish. 
The  trade  in  armaments  is  perhaps  the  most  oppressive 
of  all,  but  there  are  others  also,  slave  trades  social 
and  intimate  and  international;  no  one  can  tell  yet 
which  ones  and  how  many  it  may  be  possible  to  over- 
throw. But  there  is  one  thing  that  we  must  see.  This 
war  and  the  national  aspiration  behind  the  war  must 
not  be  allowed  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  militarists. 
I  do  not  say  that  we  must  not  be  ready  for  some  form 
of  universal  service:  that  will  depend  on  the  circum- 
stances in  which  the  war  leaves  us.  But  we  must 
not  be  militarized  in  mind  and  feeling;  we  must  keep 


288 


THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR 


our  politics  British  and  not  Prussian.  That  is  the 
danger.  It  is  the  danger  in  every  war.  In  time  of  war 
every  interest,  every  passion,  tends  to  be  concentrated 
on  the  mere  fighting,  the  gaining  of  advantages,  the  per- 
sistent use  of  cunning  and  force.  An  atmosphere  tends 
to  grow  up  in  which  the  militarist  and  the  schemer 
are  at  home  and  the  liberal  and  democrat  homeless. 

There  are  many  thousands  of  social  reformers  and 
radicals  in  this  country  who  instinctively  loathe  war, 
and  have  only  been  convinced  with  the  utmost  reluct- 
ance, if  at  all,  of  the  necessity  of  our  fighting.  The 
danger  is  that  these  people,  containing  among  them 
some  of  our  best  guides  and  most  helpful  political 
thinkers,  may  from  disgust  and  discouragement  fall 
into  the  background  and  leave  public  opinion  to  the 
mercy  of  our  own  Von  Tirpitzes  and  Bernhardis.  That 
would  be  the  last  culminating  disaster.  It  would  mean 
that  the  war  had  ceased  to  be  a  war  for  free  Europe 
against  militarism,  and  had  become  merely  one  of  the 
ordinary  sordid  and  bloody  struggles  of  nation  against 
nation,  one  link  in  the  insane  chain  of  wrongs  that  lead 
ever  to  worse  wrongs. 

One  may  well  be  thankful  that  the  strongest  of  the 
neutral  Powers  is  guided  by  a  leader  so  wise  and  up- 
right and  temperate  as  President  Wilson.  One  may 
be  thankful,  too,  that  both  here  and  in  France  we 
have  in  power  not  only  a  very  able  Ministry  but 
a  strongly  liberal  and  peace-loving  Ministry.  In  the 
first  place,  it  unites  the  country  far  more  effectively 
than  any  ministry  which  could  be  suspected  of  Jingoism. 
In  the  second  place,  it  gives  us  a  chance  of  a  permanent 
settlement,  based  on  wisdom  and  not  on  ambition. 


THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR  289 

It  is  fortunate  also  that  in  Russia  the  more  liberal 
elements  in  the  Government  seem  to  be  predomi- 
nant. Some  English  liberals  seem  to  be  sorry  and 
half  ashamed  that  we  have  Russia  as  an  ally;  for 
my  own  part  I  am  glad  and  proud.  Not  only  because 
of  her  splendid  military  achievements,  but  because,  so 
far  as  I  can  read  the  signs  of  such  things,  there  is  in 
Russia,  more  than  in  other  nations,  a  vast  untapped 
reservoir  of  spiritual  power,  of  idealism,  of  striving  for 
a  nobler  life.  And  that  is  what  Europe  will  most  need 
at  the  end  of  this  bitter  material  struggle.  I  am  proud 
to  think  that  the  liberal  and  progressive  elements  in 
Russia  are  looking  toward  England  and  feeling  strength- 
ened by  English  friendship.  "This  is  for  us,"  said 
a  great  Russian  liberal  to  me  some  days  ago,  "this 
is  for  us  a  Befreiungskrieg  (war  of  liberation).  After 
this,  reaction  is  impossible."  We  are  fighting  not  only 
to  defend  Russian  governors  and  Russian  peasants 
against  German  invasion,  but  also,  and  perhaps  even 
more  profoundly,  to  enable  the  Russia  of  Turgenieff 
and  Tolstoy,  the  Russia  of  many  artists  and  many 
martyrs,  to  work  out  its  destiny  and  its  freedom.  If 
the  true  Russia  has  a  powerful  voice  in  the  final  settle- 
ment it  will  be  a  great  thing  for  humanity. 

Of  course,  all  these  hopes  may  be  shattered  and 
made  ridiculous  before  the  settlement  comes.  They 
would  be  shattered,  probably,  by  a  German  victory; 
not  because  Germans  are  wicked,  but  because  a  German 
victory  at  the  present  time  would  mean  a  victory  for 
blood-and-iron.  They  would  be  shattered,  certainly, 
if  in  each  separate  country  the  literal  forces  abandoned 
the  situation  to  the  reactionaries,  and  stood  aside 


290  THOUGHTS  ON  THE  WAR 

while  the  nation  fell  into  that  embitterment  and  brutali- 
zation  of  feeling  which  is  the  natural  consequence  of 
a  long  war. 

To  prevent  the  first  of  these  perils  is  the  work  of  our 
armies  and  navies;  to  prevent  the  second  should  be 
the  work  of  all  thoughtful  non-combatants.  It  may  be 
a  difficult  task,  but  at  least  it  is  not  hideous;  and  some 
of  the  work  that  we  must  do  is.  So  hideous,  indeed, 
that  at  times  it  seems  strange  that  we  can  carry  it  out 
at  all — this  war  of  civilized  men  against  civilized  men, 
against  our  intellectual  teachers,  our  brothers  in  art 
and  science  and  healing  medicine,  and  so  large  a  part 
of  all  that  makes  life  beautiful.  When  we  remember 
all  this  it  makes  us  feel  lost  and  heavy-hearted,  like 
men  struggling  and  unable  to  move  in  an  evil  dream. 
.  .  .  So,  it  seems,  for  the  time  being  we  must  forget 
it.  We  modern  men  are  accustomed  by  the  needs  of 
life  to  this  division  of  feelings.  In  every  war,  in  every 
competition  almost,  there  is  something  of  the  same 
difficulty,  and  we  have  learned  to  keep  the  two  sides 
of  our  mind  apart.  We  must  fight  our  hardest,  in- 
domitably, gallantly,  even  joyously,  forgetting  all 
else  while  we  have  to  fight.  When  the  fight  is  over 
we  must  remember. 


XIV 
ECONOMIC  GERMANY 

German  Industry  considered  as  a  factor  making  for  War.' 
By  M.  HENRI  HAUSER, 

Correspondent  of  the  Institute,  Professor  at  the  University  of  Dijon. 

Translated  by  P.  E.  Matheson 
From  the  Bulletin  of  May-June,  1915. 


XIV 
ECONOMIC  GERMANY* 

ONE  of  the  favourite  arguments  used  by  pacificists 
in  recent  years  was  that  the  development  of 
industrial  civilization  made  all  war  hencefor- 
ward impossible,  and  so  to  say  unthinkable.  The 
ties  formed  between  modern  peoples  by  industry  and 
commerce  are  so  manifold  and  so  subtle,  that  interest, 
even  in  the  absence  of  sentiment,  makes  it  impossible 
to  break  them. 

Nevertheless  war  has  broken  out.  More  than  that, 
war  has  been  declared  by  a  people  whom  we  were 
pleased  to  consider  the  most  remarkable  creation  of 
industrial  civilization.  And  we  are  bound  to  recog- 
nize that,  in  the  unanimous  enthusiasm  with  which 
this  people  has  welcomed  the  dawn  of  bloodshed,  among 
the  most  eager  voices  have  been  those  of  the  com- 
mercial and  manufacturing  classes.  Financiers,  mana- 
gers of  works,  working  men  themselves,  have  all  figured 
in  the  front  ranks  of  the  defenders  of  imperialism. 

How  are  we  to  explain  this  paradox?  And  first 
let  us  get  rid  of  a  possible  misunderstanding.  Cer- 
tain thinkers  tell  us:f  "It  is  not  true  that  economic 
causes  played  a  preponderant  part  in  the  explosion 

*A  lecture  given  on  April  10,  1915. 

fLandry:  "Les  origines,  les  causes,  les  lendemains  de  la  guerre  actuelle."     (Sci- 
entia,  1915,  II.) 


294  ECONOMIC  GERMANY 

of  last  July.  Germany  was  not  threatened  by  over- 
population, she  had  no  urgent  need  of  colonies."  But 
the  truth  is  that  what  counts  in  the  history  of  humanity 
is  not  the  actual  facts,  but  the  form  in  which  men 
picture  them  to  their  minds.  Political  economy  and 
history  are  in  their  essence  psychological  sciences. 
What  we  are  concerned  to  know  is  not  whether  Ger- 
many was  actually  suffocating:  Germany  thought 
she  was  suffocating,  she  yielded — to  use  the  very  words 
of  one  of  those  who  contradict  us — to  the  haunting 
fear  of  aggressive  "encirclement,"  which  she  felt 
bound  to  shatter  at  all  costs.  It  is  this  "pathological 
phenomenon  of  collective  psychology"  which  we  must 
attempt  to  explain. 

I. — THE  EVOLUTION  OF  GERMAN  INDUSTRY 

What  strikes  us  at  the  very  outset  in  the  evolu- 
tion of  German  industry  is  the  actual  greatness  of  the 
phenomenon.  There  is  something  impressive  in  the 
spectacle  of  this  people,  which  forty  years  ago  scarcely 
counted  at  all  in  economic  geography,  and  yet  had 
become  on  the  eve  of  the  war  one  of  the  great  forces 
of  the  world.  With  her  900  to  1,000  millions*  of 
foreign  commerce  Germany  reckoned  in  the  second 
rank  of  mercantile  nations,  after  England.  Out- 
stripping England  herself  she  had  achieved  the  second 
place  in  the  smelting  and  production  of  iron  and  the 
second  also  in  the  manufacture  of  steel.  Her  mercan- 
tile marine,  inferior  to  ours  in  1870,  was  in  1913  sur- 
passed only  by  those  of  England  and  the  United  States. 

The  figures  given  by  M.  Hauser  in  milliards  (=1,000  millions  of  francs)  are 
here  given  in  millions  of  pounds  sterling. 


ECONOMIC  GERMANY  295 

All  this  won  our  admiration.  Are  we  to  disavow 
the  admiration  we  have  expressed,  because  Germany 
has  dishonoured  herself  by  crimes?  No!  For  French- 
men the  truth  is  always  the  truth.  History  will 
certainly  record  the  prodigious  effort  of  will  by  which 
Germany,  victorious  on  the  battlefield,  has  won  her 
place  by  main  force  in  the  economic  world.  I  do  not 
know  whether  it  is  true  that  Friedrich  Karl  said, 
on  the  night  of  the  surrender  of  Metz:  "We  have 
just  conquered  in  the  military  sphere:  our  task  is  now 
to  fight  and  conquer  in  the  industrial  sphere."  It 
matters  little  whether  the  words  are  apocryphal: 
they  express  a  profound  and  symbolic  truth,  and  ad- 
mirably render  the  thought  of  an  entire  nation. 

We  do  not  hesitate  then  to  recognize  that  the  Ger- 
man people,  since  the  foundation  of  the  Empire, 
have  given  proof  of  remarkable  qualities.  First  and 
foremost  they  have  worked  with  intense  energy,  not 
with  the  feverish  excitement  which  raises  mountains 
in  a  few  days,  but  with  persistent  and  patient  everyday 
labour,  regular  and  methodical.  Ostwald  is  right  when 
he  attributes  to  the  Germans  the  faculty  and  genius 
for  organization.  They  have  carried  to  perfection  the 
art  of  making  use  of  men,  of  putting  every  man  in  his 
place  and  of  getting  the  maximum  of  output  from  each 
individual.  If  the  genius  for  great  discoveries  seems  in 
recent  times  to  have  deserted  Germany,  the  Germans 
are  past  masters  in  the  application  of  the  discoveries 
of  science  to  industry.  The  statement  has  often 
enough  been  made:  It  is  the  union  of  the  laboratory 
and  the  workshop  which  is  the  foundation  of  German 
wealth.  This  truth  was  emphasized  in  1897  by  a 


296  ECONOMIC  GERMANY 

member  of  your  society,  M.  Raphael  Georges  Levy. 
In  an  article  in  the  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  which  was  a 
revelation  to  many  Frenchmen,  he  wrote:  "The  sphere 
in  which  science  wins  its  triumphs  is  that  of  industry. 
It  is  difficult  to  find  a  more  striking  demonstration  of 
this  truth  than  that  furnished  by  the  chemical  industry 
of  Germany.  That  industry  came  from  the  laboratories 
of  great  men  of  science  such  as  Liebig  and  Hoffmann, 
and  its  continued  prosperity  is  due  to  the  incessant 
cooperation  of  hundreds  of  chemists  who  come  every 
year  from  the  universities.  .  .  .  Germany  is  cov- 
ered with  laboratories,  several  of  which  have  cost 
£25,000,  and  the  yearly  upkeep  of  which  requires 
hundreds  of  thousands."* 

Again,  in  one  point  this  analysis  was  incomplete. 
Side  by  side  with  the  union  between  laboratory  and 
workshop,  it  is  necessary  to  call  attention  to  the  union 
between  the  office  of  the  business  director  and  the 
library  of  the  economist,  the  geographer  and  the  his- 
torian. For  the  method  which  the  Germans  applied 
to  the  production  of  a  new  aniline  colour  they  also 
carried  into  their  search  for  commercial  outlets,  and 
their  organization  of  channels  of  commerce.  The 
German  chemist  and  the  German  commercial  traveller 
marched  in  step  to  the  conquest  of  the  globe. 

This  rise  of  Germany  was  a  great  and,  we  are  pre- 
pared to  say,  in  a  certain  sense,  a  fine  spectacle;  but 
its  very  rapidity  contained  an  element  which  gave 
some  ground  for  anxiety.f 

*M.  Hauser  says,  "Half  a  million  marks    .    .    .    millions  of  marks."    A 
mark  is  here  taken  as=a  shilling. 

fLevy-Bruhl:   "Causes  economiques  et  politiques  de  la  conflagration  euro- 
peenne."     (Seientia,  1915, 1.) 


ECONOMIC  GERMANY  297 

The  evolution  of  Germany  has  borne  a  startling 
and  almost  catastrophic  character.  From  the  com- 
plex of  agricultural  states,  dotted  with  industrial 
patches,  which  constituted  the  Zollverein  in  1870,  the 
industrial  Empire  has  sprung  up  in  a  few  years  by  a 
sort  of  historical  "right-about-face,"  without  any  of 
that  slow  and  secular  preparation  which  marked  the 
rise,  for  instance,  of  the  English  power.  Time  has 
had  no  share  in  producing  industrial  Germany:  like 
nearly  everything  else  in  modern  Germany  it  is  an 
upstart.  A  few  dates  and  figures  will  bring  this  out 
clearly.  Karl  Lamprecht*  has  noted  the  fact  that 
toward  1880  the  infant  industry  of  Germany  still 
needed  protection  against  its  older  rivals,  and  this 
protectionist  movement  started,  by  reaction,  the  French 
movement  of  1892.  In  the  midst  of  the  internal 
struggle  over  the  question  of  canals  in  1894-1901 
it  is  still  a  matter  of  debate  "whether  the  majority 
of  occupations  and  interests  in  the  Empire  is  still 
agricultural  or  has  become  industrial  and  commercial." 
But  facts  give  the  answer:  In  1893  the  consumption 
of  raw  iron  per  caput  of  the  population  did  not  rise  to 
99kg.f  a  year;  in  1899  it  amounted  to  155  kg.f  The 
consumption  of  coal  rises  from  1,940  to  2,740  kg.  a 
head.  In  the  same  period  the  production  of  iron  and 
pig-iron  rises  from  five  million  to  more  than  eight 
million  tons,  that  of  coal  from  95  million  to  136  million. 
In  these  six  years  the  fate  of  Germany  was  decided  by 
an  increase  in  production  so  intensive  that  it  seemed 
"unwholesome,"  and  was  destined  to  lead  to  the  crisis 

*Zur  jungsten  deutschen  Vergangenheit.     1904.     Vol.  II. 
|218  Ib.  and  341  Ib.  (kilogramme =2£  lb.). 


298  ECONOMIC  GERMANY 

of  1901.  The  country  which  was  poor  had  suddenly 
become  very  rich.  In  1895  the  income  from  the  for- 
tunes of  the  Empire  was  estimated  at  21  milliards*; 
in  1913  the  estimate  varied  from  40  to  50  milliards!, 
while  the  wealth  of  Germany  was  estimated  at  320 
milliards,  f  of  which  nearly  9.5  consisted  of  deposits 
in  banks  and  18  in  savings  banks§  (caisses  d'epargne). 
Such  are  the  figures  proudly  produced  by  Dr.  Helf- 
ferich,  Director  of  the  Deutsche  Bank,  the  present 
Minister  of  Finance  of  the  King  of  Prussia,  at  the 
twenty-fifth  anniversary  of  the  accession  of  William  II. 
This  sudden  increase  in  German  wealth  had  very 
serious  consequences  for  the  character  and  distribution 
of  the  population  of  Germany.  The  two  most  not- 
able results  were  the  progressive  disappearance  of  the 
rural  population  and  the  abrupt  cessation  of  emigra- 
tion. It  is  repeatedly  stated  that  the  Germans  were 
forced  into  a  policy  of  expansion  and  conquest  by  the 
increase  in  their  population.  This  was  indeed  the 
excuse  they  put  forward  to  justify  their  attempts  to 
create  colonies  of  settlement  in  Morocco  and  Asia 
Minor.  A  pitiless  Malthusian  law  had  forced  them, 
it  was  said,  to  find  for  themselves  a  "place  in  the  sun." 
Now  there  could  be  no  idea  more  false  than  this  of 
Germany  as  an  over-populated  country.  It  is  quite 
true  that  since  1871  the  population  of  the  Empire  has 
increased  from  40  to  nearly  70  millions.  It  is  quite 

*840  million  pounds  (taking  £1  =  25  francs). 
tl,600  to  2,000  million  pounds. 
J12.800  million  pounds. 

§See  Bonnefon:  "Les  causes  econoraiques  de  la  guerre"  (Revue  de  Paris,  Jan- 
uary 15,  1915. 


ECONOMIC  GERMANY  299 

true  that  in  spite  of  a  decline  in  the  birth  rate,  the 
increase  in  the  population  of  Germany  was  800,000 
a  year:  that  is,  800,000  more  births  than  deaths,  800,000 
more  mouths  to  feed.  But  this  increase  was  far  from 
being  excessive,  for  every  year  700,000  Slav  labourers 
came  in  to  work  on  the  great  estates  of  the  east,  not  to 
mention  the  Italian,  Croatian,  Polish,  etc.,  labour  em- 
ployed in  towns,  mines,  and  works.* 

As  for  German  emigration  it  is  no  longer  more 
than  a  memory.  Between  1880  and  1883  it  exceeded 
200,000  a  year;  to-day  it  does  not  reach  20,000 — very 
much  the  same  figure  as  our  own,  and  the  French  are 
regarded  as  a  people  who  emigrate  very  little.  The 
number  of  arrivals  far  exceeds  that  of  departures: 
Germany  has  ceased  to  be  a  country  of  emigration 
and  is  becoming  a  country  of  immigration. 

There  is  indeed  an  emigration  in  Germany,  but  it  is 
an  internal  emigration,  from  the  country  to  the  town, 
from  the  agricultural  regions  to  the  industrial  districts. 
Since  1895  the  population  living  on  the  land  has  ceased 
to  be  half  of  the  total  population:  at  the  present  time 
it  is  not  44  per  cent. 

Out  of  67  million  Germans  scarcely  17  millions  are 
agricultural  or  live  on  agriculture.  Every  year  an 
enormous  number  of  peasants  quit  the  land  and  rush 
into  colossal  factories.  It  is  thus  that  the  number  of 
towns  with  a  population  over  100,000  exceeds  45;  it 
is  thus  that  armies  of  labour  are  formed  which  put 


*Ashley,  "The  economical  side  of  the  European  conflagration"  (Scientia,  1915, 1). 

The  idea  that  Germany  is  over-full,  that  the  German  people  is  choking  for 
want  of  room  is  cherished  by  theorists,  but  has  little  basis  in  fact.  Constant 
decline  in  rate  of  emigration  since  1891 :  it  is  not  a  sixth  of  what  it  was  then. 


300  ECONOMIC  GERMANY 

15,000  workmen  at  the  disposal  of  a  firm  like  Manne- 
sermann,  more  than  30,000  under  Thyssen,  73,000— 
nearly  two  army  corps — under  Krupp.  In  these 
figures  I  include  all  the  works  belonging  to  one  firm. 

Germany  has  definitively  passed  from  the  type  of 
the  agricultural  state  to  that  of  the  industrial  state, 
from  the  Agrarstaat  to  the  Industriestaat.  The  equil- 
ibrium between  the  land  and  the  workshop  has  been 
upset.* 

II. THE  INDUSTRIAL  STATE  AND  ITS  NEEDS 

The  industrial  state  has  very  imperious  needs  and 
requirements,  which  are  not  shared  by  the  agricultural 
state;  the  agricultural  state  lives  on  itself  and  for  itself, 
and  can  live  within  its  own  limits.f  The  industrial 
state,  to  use  the  phrase  of  Lamprecht,  is  a  "tentacular" 
state.  J 

To  begin  with,  it  has  need  of  supplies  of  food.     It  is 

*Lamprecht,  op.  tit.,  put  the  question  to  himself:  "Is  Germany  already  an 
Industriestaat  or  still  an  Agrar-und  Industrie  Stoat,  an  intermediate  form?"  But 
he  showed  that  the  startling  rapidity  of  its  industrial  development  was  already 
giving  rise,  ten  years  ago,  to  a  general  tendency  to  the  "Industrial  State,  World- 
policy  and  Imperialism."  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  this  work  of  Lamprecht,  the 
last  of  his  historic  series,  was  not  more  read  in  France.  It  would  have  given  us 
more  exact  information  on  the  ideas  and  intentions  of  Germany  than  a  dozen 
interviews.  The  same  philosophy  and  the  same  appetite  for  empire  are  to  be 
found  as  in  Treitschke,  but  in  a  more  agreeable  and  not  unattractive  form. 

fG.  Stresemann,  "La  politique  mondiale  de  1'Allemagne"  (Revue  economique 
Internationale,  1913.  Ill,  p.  85  foil.).  "The  Prussia  of  Frederick  William  III 
was  from  the  economic  point  of  view  a  self-sufficing  state." 

jLamprecht,  op.  tit.,  II,  p.  593.  "The  Empire,  as  a  body  politic,  is  not  bounded 
by  its  frontiers."  Elsewhere  he  writes:  "The  people  press  outward  over  the 
borders."  Paris,  he  reminds  us,  has  been  called  a  "tentacular"  city  because  it 
strangles  the  whole  country  and  absorbs  its  strength.  (It  was  really  in  a  different 
and  much  more  general  sense  that  Vandervelde  used  this  striking  phrase  of  "ten- 
tacular cities.")  In  a  far  better  sense  "the  Empire  may  be  described  as  the  Ger- 
manic 'tentacular  state.'" 


ECONOMIC  GERMANY  301 

calculated  that  20  millions  of  the  67  millions  of  Ger- 
many depend  for  their  maintenance  on  foreign  harvests 
and  foreign  cattle.  A  dangerous  position,  since  it 
compels  Germany  to  secure  for  herself  at  all  times 
not  only  free  passage  over  her  land  frontiers,  but, 
above  all,  freedom  of  communication  by  sea.  We 
know  what  it  costs  Germany  to-day  to  be  cut  off  from 
receiving  the  wheat  of  Russia,  America,  and  Argentina. 

The  industrial  state  is  in  pressing  need  not  only  of 
capital  but  of  raw  material.  Germany,  when  she 
entered  the  lists,  was  regarded  as  a  country  rich  in 
coal  and  iron.  She  has  remained  rich  in  coal;  but  by 
working  her  iron  mines  intensively  I  do  not  say  she 
has  exhausted  them,  but  she  can  no  longer  extract 
from  them  the  total  amount  of  ore  required  by  her 
metallurgical  works.  Krupp  is  more  and  more  de- 
pendent on  Sweden,  Spain,  north  Africa  and  France. 
In  the  same  way  the  spinning  and  weaving  factories 
of  Saxony  and  Silesia  are  dependent  on  Texas  and 
Louisiana.  If  Sweden,  which  has  nationalized  her 
mines,  puts  barriers  on  the  export  of  her  ores,  or  the 
price  of  corn  undergoes  an  abnormal  rise  in  the  market 
of  New  Orleans,  it  means  famine  for  the  crowds  which 
throng  into  the  Westphalia  district  or  to  the  north  of 
the  Bohemian  mountains. 

Raw  cotton  bulks  larger  than  any  other  article  im- 
ported into  Germany,  to  the  amount  of  considerably 
more  than  £25,000,000.  The  cotton  industry  employs 
more  than  1|  millions  of  workpeople  and  manufactures 
goods  to  the  value  of  more  than  £50,000,000.  Now, 
two  thirds  of  the  raw  cotton  consumed  in  the  world  is 
supplied  by  a  single  country,  the  United  States.  In 


302  ECONOMIC  GERMANY 

1894,  a  syndicate — the  Sully  cotton  corner — took  ad- 
vantage of  this  situation  to  produce  an  enormous 
rise  of  prices  and  to  reserve  the  cotton  for  the  Ameri- 
can factories.  On  the  Bremen  Exchange,  in  February, 
the  price  paid  for  cotton  was  85  pfennigs  a  pound, 
while  in  December,  when  the  corner  had  been  broken 
up,  it  fell  to  35.  Germany  lost  in  the  operation 
£5,850,000  paid  to  the  foreigner.  A  reduction  in  the 
production  of  cotton  textiles  and  wide-spread  dismissal 
of  workmen  were  the  results  of  this  veritable  cotton 
famine,  which  at  the  same  time  disastrously  affected 
our  own  industries  in  the  Vosges  and  in  Normandy 
as  well  as  those  of  Lancashire.* 

The  industrial  state  has  need  of  capital.  In  spite 
of  the  prodigious  increase  in  German  wealth,  German 
industry  has  an  enormous  appetite  for  capital.  No 
sooner  is  capital  created  than  it  is  used  up  in  con- 
structing new  works  or  in  remodelling  machinery.  In 
the  formidable  struggle  in  which  Germany  has  entered 
she  is  condemned  to  make  new  conquests  every  day, 
for  any  defeat,  nay  more,  any  check,  would  be  fatal. f 
It  would  be  true  to  say  that  capital  is  swallowed 
up  before  it  comes  into  being,  for  it  is  anticipated 
by  credit.  Companies  with  imposing  capital  depen- 
dent on  industrial  banks,  these  again  dependent  on 

*J.  Stresemann.  "The  exports  of  Germany  do  not  consist  of  raw  materials 
which  cannot  be  found  elsewhere;  on  the  contrary  German  industry  is  confined  to 
the  transformation  of  raw  materials  which  she  has  to  seek  abroad;  she  is  there- 
fore in  a  condition  of  dependence.  She  has  to  pay  for  her  raw  materials  and  for 
her  food  supplies  from  abroad  by  means  of  her  export  of  industrial  products." 
See  also  F.  Friedensburg.  "Die  zukunftige  Erzversorgung  der  deutschen  Eisen- 
industrie"  (Preussische  Jahrbilcher,  May,  1913). 

tBonnefon,  op.  cit.,  "No  truce,  no  pause  is  possible." 


ECONOMIC  GERMANY  303 

central  banks  and  especially  on  the  Deutsche  Bank, 
these  great  banks  in  their  turn  absorbing  all  available 
wealth,  including  a  proportion  of  foreign  capital — 
all  this  forms  a  marvellous  but  fragile  structure.* 
The  very  denials  of  the  German  financiers  prove  that 
they  cannot  afford  to  disregard  the  assistance  of 
foreign  capital.  Let  but  one  of  the  streams  which 
feed  the  mighty  river  happen  to  dry  up,  and  the  crisis 
comes  with  violent  and  widespread  consequences. f 

Customers  are  necessary  to  Germany  even  more  than 
capital.  In  spite  of  their  power  of  increase,  in  spite  of 
their  rapid  advance  in  wealth,  in  spite  of  their  appetite 
for  enjoyment,  the  German  people  cannot  by  themselves 
alone  absorb  the  enormous  output  of  the  German 
factories.  They  are  bound  to  turn  more  and  more  to 
the  outside  world  and  to  become  an  exporting  industry .{ 

All  causes  then  combine  to  make  Germany  a  ten- 
tacular state,  spreading  out  in  every  direction  over 
the  world.  The  general  staff  of  the  industrial  world 
needs  a  world-policy  to  find  interest  for  its  capital  and 
to  pay  the  wages  of  its  workmen. §  The  proletariat 


*Bonnefon,  op.  cit.,  "  The  higher  this  fabulousedificerosethemorefragileit became." 
tSee  in  particular  Steinberg,  Die  Wirthschaftskrisis,  1901.     Bonn,  1902. 

J  Ashley,  op.  cit.,  "This  industry  cannot  dispense  with  a  wide  foreign  market." 
Similarly  Bonnefon:  "Germany  then  is  dependent  on  the  world-market."  As 
early  as  1900  it  was  admitted  that  70  per  cent,  of  the  foreign  trade  of  Germany 
was  carried  by  sea.  This  shows  the  importance  of  control  of  the  sea  for  German 
industry.  Levy-Bruhl  writes:  "She  is  suffocated  by  her  own  superabundant 
production." 

§M.  Bonnefon  has  collected  some  striking  figures:  Gelsenkirchen  has  to  pay 
dividends  on  £9,000,000  of  shares,  and  interest  on  £3,900,000  debentures.  Krupp 
pays  on  £9,000,000  and  £2,750,000;  the  Phoanix  on  £5,300,000  and  £1,600,000. 
The  rate  of  growth  will  be  seen  when  it  is  remembered  that  the  Allgemeine  Elek- 
trizitatsgesellschafi  in  1883  had  a  share  capital  of  £250,000;  in  1900  of  £3,000,000; 


304  ECONOMIC  GERMANY 

have  need  of  it  to  give  them  a  full  day's  work  and  save 
them  from  starvation.  That  is  why  German  social- 
ism is  imperialist.*  You  know  what  a  hue  and  cry 
were  raised  against  the  French  socialist  who  dared  to 
make  this  discovery.  We  are  compelled  to-day  to 
recognize  that  M.  Andler  was  too  painfully  right. 
Even  as  early  as  1900  the  defenders  of  the  Naval  Law 
wrote:  "The  freedom  of  the  seas  and  vigorous  compe- 
tition in  the  markets  of  the  world  are  therefore  ques- 
tions of  life  and  death  for  the  nation,  questions  in 
which  the  working  classes  are  most  deeply  interested." 
We  know  by  recent  examples  what  Germany  means 
by  "questions  of  life  and  death,"  and  what  methods 
she  is  in  the  habit  of  using  to  answer  such  questions  and 
to  deal  with  any  obstacles  that  bar  the  way  to  their 
solution.  Only  yesterday  the  social  democrat,  Konrad 
Hoenisch,  ex-member  of  the  Reichstag,  exclaimed: 
"The  social  interests  of  the  German  proletariat  even 
more  than  political  considerations  make  victory  for 
Germany  necessary." 

in  1911  of  £6,500,000;  in  1912  of  £8,000,000,  plus  £5,500,000  debentures.  The 
number  of  Joint-stock  Companies  before  1870  was  about  200,  with  a  capital  of 
less  than  £125,000,000.  They  have  to-day  a  capital  of  over  £1,000,000,000. 

*The  historian  G.  von  Below,  "  Militarismus  und  Kultur  hi  Deutschland" 
(Scientia,  1915,  ii),  says:  "The  spirit  of  discipline,  which  reigns  hi  the  German 
army,  is  also  the  spirit  to  which  we  owe  the  economic  growth  which  has  drawn  on 
us  the  hatred  of  England.  Militarism  is  the  school  of  our  working  classes." 
Gustav  Stresemann,  like  M.  Andler,  in  1913  took  note  of  the  fact  that  the  apparent 
opposition  of  socialism  to  the  world-policy  was  merely  "the  outward  aspect  of  the 
policy  of  the  democratic  party";  he  called  attention  to  articles  in  the  Sozialistische 
Monatshefte,  one  by  Max  Schippfel,  ex-member  for  Chemnitz,  "The  most  brilliant 
eulogium  on  the  expansionist  policy";  and  another  by  Quessel,  a  member  of  the 
Reichstag,  "The  economic  importance  of  imperialism."  "There  are  moments," 
he  says,  "when  this  article  might  seem  to  be  written  by  a  pan-Germanist."  This 
account  must  be  supplemented  by  the  recent  publications  of  James  Guillaume  and 
of  Laskiue. 


ECONOMIC  GERMANY  305 

III. INDUSTRY   AND    WORLD-POLICY 

(Weltpolitik.) 

Thus  we  see  the  industrial  state  condemned  to 
World-policy.*  Its  first  business  is  to  find  means  to 
develop  its  policy  of  export.  The  first  means  adopted 
is  the  system  of  bounties.  As  German  industry  is 
working  less  for  the  home  market  than  for  fore'gn  mar- 
kets it  is  logical  to  sell  cheap,  sometimes  even  to  sell 
at  a  loss  beyond  the  frontier  in  order  to  win  new  markets 
and  to  discourage  all  competition.  Thanks  to  the 
system  by  which  the  chief  economic  forces  are  grouped 
in  cartels,  the  process  is  easy  enough.  In  1902  the 
coke  syndicate  compelled  the  German  consumer  to 
pay  15s.  a  ton  while  at  the  same  time  it  agreed  to  sell 
large  quantities  abroad  at  11s.  In  the  second  half  of 
1900  the  iron-wire  syndicate  had  sold  abroad  at  14s. 
per  100  kg.  while  the  home  price  was  25s.  It  thus 
made  a  minus  profit  on  the  foreign  market,  that  is,  a 
loss  of  £42,950,  and  on  the  home  market  a  profit  of 
£58,850.  This  gave  a  balance  on  the  right  side.  But 
this  time  the  trick  was  overdone,  for  the  result  was 
that  German  iron  was  bought  up  abroad  to  be  re- 
exported  to  Germany  at  a  profit.f  Next  to  the  system 

*This  is  admirably  put  by  Lamprecht,  op.  dt.  The  tentacular  state  is  essen- 
tially based  on  the  idea  of  the  importation  of  provisions  and  raw  materials,  and  of 
the  export  of  more  and  more  highly  specialized  goods.  "Therefore,  be  always  on 
the  watch!  ....  To-day  (1904)  every  nerve  is  strained  to  maintain  the 
position  of  Deutscktum  in  the  world,  and  to  advance  it."  This  requires  that  our 
economic  life  should  be  united,  all  its  forces  acting  as  a  whole,  "like  an  army" 
.  .  .  List's  prophecy  is  realized:  the  sea  must  no  longer  be  merely  a  highway 
for  our  commerce  and  a  nursing-mother  of  our  national  economy,  but  a  battle- 
field in  our  struggle  with  the  nations  and  the  cradle  of  a  new  freedom." 

tSteinberg,  op.  cit. 


306  ECONOMIC  GERMANY 

of  bounties  comes  that  of  treaties  of  commerce,  which 
favour  the  importation  of  provisions  and  of  labourers 
(Slavs  for  example),  and  which  secure  a  moderate  tariff 
for  German  goods  abroad.  Such  is  the  basis  of  the 
Russo-German  Treaty  of  1904,  the  tendency  of  which 
was  to  make  Russia  an  economic  colony  of  Germany.* 
In  order  to  meet  the  want  of  iron,  Germany  had  to 
conquer  new  supplies  of  iron  ore.  Peaceful  conquest 
to  begin  with.  The  expert  adviser  attached  to  the 
commissioners  of  delimitation  in  1871  allowed  the 
iron-ore  strata  of  the  Woevre  to  escape,  from  ignor- 
ance of  their  real  importance  and  also  because  he 
thought  them  inaccessible  by  reason  of  their  depth- 
unworkable  because  of  their  high  percentage  of  phos- 
phorus. But  the  application  of  the  Thomas  process 
in  1878  converted  the  Briey  basin  into  the  most  im- 
portant iron-field  at  present  being  worked  in  the  world. 
That  is  why  Thyssen  made  his  way  into  this  region  at 
Batilly,  Jouaville  and  Bouligny  under  fictitious  names. 
At  the  same  time  he  sent  his  divers  to  Dielette  to 
search  for  ore  under  the  sea:  he  planted  his  agents  in 
the  mining  and  metallurgical  company  of  Calvados, 
started  under  some  one  else's  name  the  company  of 
mines  and  quarries  at  Flamanville,  and  then  the 
powerful  company  of  smelting  and  steel  works  at  Caen. 
By  these  operations  he  gained  the  double  advantage  of 
buying  ore  from  us  and  selling  coke  to  us.  With  the  iron 
of  Lorraine  and  Normandy  and  the  coal  of  Westphalia, 
Germany  would  be  the  mistress  of  the  world. 


'Steinberg,  op.  c&.,  and  Bonnefon.  The  object  isbymeansof  these  treaties  "to  com- 
pensate by  rise  of  wages  for  the  higher  price  of  cereals";  that  is  to  say,  to  maintain  the 
balance  between  the  working  classes  of  the  west  and  the  agrarians  of  the  east. 


ECONOMIC  GERMANY  307 

To  make  sure  of  this  supremacy  it  was  of  importance 
to  remove  all  competition  and  establish  German 
industry  in  the  very  heart  of  the  country  of  her  rivals. 
A  description  was  given  before  the  war  of  the  extraor- 
dinary control  acquired  by  German  manufacturers 
over  French  works  producing  chemical  materials, 
electricity,  etc.*  At  Neuville-sur-Saone  it  was  the 
Badische  Sodafabrik  which,  under  a  French  name, 
provided  the  madder-dye  for  the  red  trousers  of  the 
French  army,  and  possibly  it  even  inspired  the  Press 
campaign,  conducted  with  the  support  of  sentimental 
arguments,  in  favour  of  a  colour  which  was  dangerous 
from  a  military  point  of  view.  The  Parisian  Aniline 
Dye  Company  (Compagnie  parisienne  des  couleurs 
d' aniline)  was  nothing  but  a  branch  of  Meister,  Lucius 
and  Bruning,  of  Hoechst.  We  have  been  told  how  a 
Darmstadt  company  for  producing  pharmaceutical 
goods  came  and  established  a  branch  at  Montereau  in 
order  to  destroy  a  French  factory  which  was  there  before, 
and  how  the  Allgemeine  Elektrizitatsgesellschaft  got  hold 
of  Rouen,  Nantes,  Algiers,  Oran,  and  Chateauroux. 

The  same  conquests  were  won  at  Seville,  Granada, 
Buenos  Aires,  Montevideo,  Mendoza,  Santiago  and 
Valparaiso,  while  the  other  great  electric  company  of 
Germany,  the  Siemens-Schuckert,  established  itself 
at  Creil.  Turkey,!  Russia,J  Italy,  and  Switzerland 

*It  is  only  necessary  to  recall  the  campaign  conducted  in  the  Grande  Revue 
by  M.  Louis  Bruneau  (published  as  a  volume,  L Attemagne  en  France,  1914);  cf. 
also  A.  Staehling,  Bulletin  du  comite  Michelet,  No.  3,  Dec.  1914. 

fGerman  action  in  Turkey  goes  back  to  1880;  the  Kaiser's  visit  in  1898  was 
utilized  by  German  finance  under  the  direction  of  Siemens. 

Jin  Poland  branches  were  founded  to  evade  the  customs  (electricity,  dyes,  silk 
and  paper). 


308  ECONOMIC  GERMANY 

shared  the  fate  of  France.  Some  weeks  ago  a  Swiss 
journal  gave  the  following  figures: — Societe  anonyme 
pour  Vindustrie  de  I' aluminium  (NeucMtel):  staff,  8 
Germans,  1  Austrian,  6  Swiss;  Banque  des  chemins  de 
fer  orientaux  (Zurich):  8  Germans,  1  Frenchman,  1 
Belgian,  1  Austrian,  5  Swiss;  Banque  pour  entreprises 
electriques  (Zurich):  15  Germans,  9  Swiss;  Societe  des 
valeurs  de  metaux  (Basle),  10  Germans,  5  Swiss.  It  is 
to  be  noticed  that  the  share-capital  is  held  by  Ger- 
mans, while  the  debentures,  the  moderate  interest  on 
which  does  not  attract  the  Germans,  are  placed  in 
Switzerland.  Thus,  as  the  Gazette  de  Lausanne  summed 
it  up,  "The  money  of  the  Swiss  debenture-holder 
serves  to  support  German  undertakings  competing 
with  Swiss  manufacturers  in  our  own  country." 

A  remarkable  study  of  the  same  subject  in  Italy 
has  been  made  by  M.  Giovanni  Preziosi  in  some  articles 
which  appeared  in  1914  in  the  Vita  italiana  all9  ester '0, 
and  were  collected  in  pamphlet  form  in  1915  under 
the  significant  title,  "Germany's  Plan  for  the  Con- 
quest of  Italy"  (La  Germania  alia  conquista  dell9  Italia). 
It  was  indeed  a  war  of  conquest,  conducted  with 
admirable  organizing  faculty.  At  its  centre  was  a 
financial  staff,  constituted  by  the  i(Banca  commerciale 
.  .  .  italiana,"  which  naturally  is  called  Italian, 
just  as  the  companies  in  France  are  called  French  or 
Parisian.  This  product  of  German  finance  is  described 
as  a  "Germanic  octopus,"  the  very  image  of  the  ten- 
tacular state  before  described.  Establishing  itself 
within  the  directing  boards,  and,  by  means  of  a  system 
of  secret  cards,*  employing  a  regular  system  of  com- 

*Jiches,  cards  or  slips  containing  notes  on  the  persons  spied  upon. 


ECONOMIC  GERMANY  309 

mercial  espionage  to  ruin  all  who  resist  it,  it  succeeded 
in  gradually  absorbing  the  economic  energies  of  an 
entire  people — establishments  of  credit,  shipping  com- 
panies, manufacturing  firms;  it  was  even  able  to  corrupt 
political  life,  overthrow  ministries  and  control  elec- 
tions. Here,  as  in  Switzerland,  the  pseudo-Italian 
German  banks  "act  as  a  pump  which  pumps  out  of 
Italy  and  pumps  into  Germany."  Italy,  which  is 
considered  a  poor  country,  provides  capital  for  rich 
Germany. 

IV. — THE  PART  PLAYED  BY  THE  STATE 

To  back  up  this  policy  of  economic  conquest  the 
prestige  and  the  strength  of  the  Empire  must  be  put 
at  the  service  of  the  manufacturers.  To  make  the 
state  as  the  Germans  understand  it,  the  instrument 
of  German  expansion — this  is  the  meaning  of  what 
the  Germans  have  well  named  the  policy  of  "business 
and  power"  (Handels  und  Machtpolitik).*  Nowhere 
is  the  confusion  of  the  two  ideas  more  clearly  ex- 
hibited than  in  the  report  forwarded  to  London  in 
February,  1914,  by  Sir  Edward  Goschen,  on  "An 
Official  German  Organization  for  Influencing  the  Press 
of  Other  Countries,  "f  This  important  document  is 

*The  meetings  of  German  economists  which  supported  the  Navy  Law  in  1912 
met  under  this  name.  (See  Ashley,  art.  cit.) 

^Despatches  from  H.  M.  Ambassador  at  Berlin  respecting  an  official  German 
organization  for  influencing  the  Press  of  other  countries,  February  27,  1914.  Herr 
Ballin's  first  project  was  to  merge  in  one  world-union  (Weltver^in)  all  the  societies 
for  German  trade  abroad — German-Russian,  German- Argentine,  German-Canadian, 
etc.  It  has  been  thought  strange  that  he  gave  up  his  scheme,  but  it  was  really 
to  create  "another  organization  of  a  more  subtle  kind  which  should  act  more  or  less 
secretly."  The  meeting  to  constitute  the  society  was  attended  not  only  by  repre- 
sentatives of  the  companies,  but  by  the  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs. 


310  ECONOMIC  GERMANY 

too  little  known  in  France,  perhaps  because,  outside 
the  Blue  Book,  it  has  not  appeared  in  England  except  as 
an  ordinary  White  Paper.  But  how  instructive  it  is ! 

The  Norddeutscher  Lloyd,  the  Hamburg-Amerika, 
the  Deutsche  Bank,  the  Disconto  Gesellschaft,  the 
A.  E.  G.  (Allgemeine  Elektrizitats  Gesellschaft),  the 
Siemens-Schuckert,  Krupp,  and  Gruson  Companies, 
etc.,  form  a  private  society,  subsidized  by  the  Imperial 
Office  for  Foreign  Affairs.  The  object  of  this  company, 
in  cooperation  with  the  Wolff  Bureau,  is  to  promote 
the  manufacturing  prestige  of  Germany  abroad.  It 
will  supply  full  information  gratuitously  or  at  a  low 
price  to  foreign  journals  in  their  own  language  con- 
cerning Germany  and  favourable  to  Germany.  It 
will  withhold  the  service  from  those  who  show  them- 
selves deaf  to  instruction.*  "To  reply  to  news  meant 
to  influence  opinion  on  Germany  and  to  meet  attacks 
upon  her,  and  to  make  the  true  situation  of  German 
industry  widely  known" — such  is  the  programme.  In 
a  word,  the  object  is  the  organization  of  a  spy-system 
for  industry — I  use  the  phrase  of  Signor  Preziosi— 
under  the  control  of  the  Empire.  And,  as  is  fitting 
in  such  a  system,  the  work  of  Germanizing  the  Press 


The  society  was  established  by  subscriptions  amounting  to  £25,000  a  year,  the 
companies  paying  into  it  what  they  had  hitherto  been  used  to  pay  for  foreign  ad- 
vertisements. The  minimum  contribution  of  each  firm  taking  part  in  it  is  £50, 
which  gives  the  right  to  a  vote.  The  Imperial  Office  for  Foreign  Affairs,  which 
pays  a  subsidy  of  £12,500,  will  therefore  exercise  a  "powerful  and  decisive  influ- 
ence." The  syndicate,  formed  provisionally  for  three  years,  is  directed  by  a  body 
of  three  directors,  and  by  a  council,  in  which  the  great  banking  and  exporting  firms 
are  conspicuous. 

*Reduced  charges  for  German  cables.  The  foreign  press  will  be  watched  by 
the  syndicate's  agents.  The  system  will  be  applied  at  once  in  South  America  and 
the  Far  East,  and  extended  gradually  to  all  countries  outside  Europe. 


ECONOMIC  GERMANY  311 

of  the  world  will  not  be  done  by  publicists  sent  for  the 
purpose :  they  would  very  soon  be  burnt.  In  an  article* 
so  naively  transparent  that  its  publication  was  thought  in- 
opportune and  orders  came  from  above  not  to  reproduce 
it  or  make  any  allusion  to  it,  the  Deutsche  Export  Revue 
crudely  remarked:  "It  is  better  to  choose  men  already 
connected  with  the  various  journals,  who  will  serve  Ger- 
man interests  without  attracting  so  much  attention." 

This  fusion  of  Weltpolitik  and  business  policy  was 
peculiarly  dangerous  for  the  peace  of  the  world. f  If 
imperialism,  if  the  tentacular  state,  puts  its  strength 
at  the  disposal  of  manufacturing  interests,  the  temp- 
tation is  strong  and  constant  to  use  this  strength  to 
break  down  any  resistance  which  stands  in  the  way  of 
the  triumph  of  these  interests.  If  a  crisis  comes 
which  causes  a  stoppage  of  work  (there  are  some- 
times 100,000  unemployed  in  Berlin J)  the  neighbouring 
nation  which  may  be  held  responsible  for  the  crisis 
has  reason  to  be  on  its  guard.  "Be  my  customer  or 
I  kill  you"  seems  to  be  the  motto  of  this  industrial 
system,  continually  revolving  in  its  diabolical  circle: 
always  producing  more  in  order  to  sell  more,  always 


*Deutsche  Export  Revue,  June  5,  1914.  "The  aims  of  German  national  economy; 
a  syndicate  to  supply  news  abroad,"  given  in  an  appendix  to  the  Goschen  report. 

fThis  point  was  specially  emphasized  by  Levy-Bruhl  in  the  article  named  above: 
"The  extraordinary  development  of  German  manufactures  meant  for  its  neigh- 
bours and  for  the  world  rather  a  danger  of  war  than  a  guarantee  of  peace.  This 
is  no  paradox.  .  .  .  It  is  not  good  for  the  peace  of  the  world  that  the  com- 
mercial prestige  of  a  great  nation  should  rest  on  its  military  prestige." 

jSee  the  figures  in  Jastrow's  Arbeitsmarkt.  Steinberg  mentions  a  whole  series 
of  metallurgical  companies,  the  shares  of  which,  in  1898-1900  and  1900-1901,  fell 
from  256  to  83,  from  749  to  42,  &c.,  and  their  dividends  from  15  per  cent,  to  0, 
from  7  to  0,  from  25  to  12,  from  35  to  0.  Schuckert  fell  from  288  to  100,  and  from 
15  per  cent,  to  0. 


312  ECONOMIC  GERMANY 

selling  more  in  order  to  meet  the  necessities  of  a  pro- 
duction always  growing  more  intensive. 

Russia  is  for  Germany  both  a  reservoir  of  labour 
and  a  market.  Should  Russia  in  1917  refuse  to  renew 
the  disastrous  treaty  forced  upon  her  in  the  unlucky 
days  of  the  Japanese  war,  should  she  put  an  end  to 
the  system  of  passports  for  agricultural  labourers,* 
what  will  become  of  German  capitalist  agriculture,  which 
has  been  more  and  more  industrialized  and  is  more  and 
more  in  the  hands  of  the  banks:  the  farming  of  the 
great  estates  of  Brandenburg,  Pomerania,  and  Prussia? 

France  is  for  Germany  a  bank  and  a  purveyor 
of  minerals.  What  a  temptation  to  dip  deep  into  the 
jealously  guarded  stocking  and  fill  both  hands !  What 
a  temptation,  too,  to  repair  the  blunder  made  in  the 
delimitation  of  1871!  Even  in  1911  the  Gazette  du 
Rhin  et  de  Westphalie  put  forward  the  view  that  the 
iron  ores  of  Lorraine  and  Luxemburg  ought  to  be 
under  the  same  control  as  those  of  Westphalia  and 
the  Saar.  And  I  am  told  that  the  great  journals  of 
Paris,  when  informed  of  this  campaign, 'refused  to  take 
this  "provincial  journal"  seriously,  being  blind  to  the 
fact  that  it  was  the  organ  of  the  great  manufacturers  of 
the  Rhineland  and  of  the  Prussian  staff.  What  a 
temptation  again  to  take  the  port  of  Cherbourg  in 
the  rear  from  Dielette ! 

As  for  England,  the  direct  competitor  of  Germany  in 
all  the  markets  of  the  world,  and  manufacturing  the 
same  goods,  she  is  the  enemy  to  be  crushed.*  Has  she 

*Stresemann:  "Most  of  the  present  problems,  national  alliances,  and  inter- 
national events,  are  found  to  have  their  ultimate  origin  in  the  competition  of  Eng- 
land and  Germany,"  he  writes  in  1913.  The  article  ended  with  a  challenge  to 
England  and  insisted  on  "the  seriousness  of  the  present  tension." 


ECONOMIC  GERMANY  313 

not  acquired  the  habit,  and  has  she  not  taught  it  to 
France,  of  refusing  to  lend  money  to  poor  states  ex- 
cept in  return  for  good  orders?  The  time  is  beginning 
to  go  by  when  it  was  possible  to  do  German  business 
in  Turkey  with  French  or  English  gold.  Germany's 
rivals  have  learned  from  her  the  lesson  of  Handels  und 
Machtpolitik.  But  what  is  to  become  of  Essen,  Gelsen- 
kirchen,  and  all  that  immense  industrial  city  of  which 
Westphalia  consists,  if  Rumanians,  Greeks,  Serbians, 
order  their  guns  and  their  ironclads,  their  rails  or  their 
locomotives  at  Glasgow  or  at  Le  Creusot?  Germany 
thought  war  preferable  to  this  economic  encirclement, 
and  the  velvet  glove  gave  place  to  the  mailed  gauntlet. 

Little  by  little  the  idea  of  war  as  necessary,  of  war 
as  almost  a  thing  to  wish  for,  laid  hold  on  the  industrial 
classes.  The  proof  is  to  be  found  as  early  as  1908  in  a 
popular  book  by  Professor  Paul  Arndt,  one  of  those 
small  shilling  books  which  served  to  instruct  the  Ger- 
man mind.*  All  of  us,  even  the  best  informed,  must 
reproach  ourselves  for  not  having  studied  or  studied 
closely  enough  these  small  books,  which  would  have 
made  the  danger  clear  to  us.  In  this  volume  the  author, 
after  a  paean  to  German  greatness,  begins  a  chapter 
"On  the  dangers  of  Germany's  participation  in  world- 
wide trade."  He  shows  that  this  participation  in- 
creases Germany's  dependence  on  the  foreigner  and 
makes  her  vulnerable  by  sea  as  well  as  by  land.  If 
international  relations  are  disturbed  there  will  be 
"many  workmen  without  food,  and  much  depreciation 

*Deutschlands  SieUung  in  Weltwirthschaft  (Teubner).  For  the  same  subject 
treated  in  more  scientific  form  see  Arthur  Dix,  Politische  Wirthschaftsgeographie, 
1910. 


314  ECONOMIC  GERMANY 

of  capital,"  and  that  from  causes  "in  great  measure 
beyond  the  control  of  Germany"  in  countries  which 
may  seize  the  opportunity  to  weaken  Germany.  And 
in  a  hypothesis  which  is  prophetic  he  describes  the 
effects  of  the  blockade. 

But  he  accepts  without  hesitation  these  risks  of  the 
world-policy.  "No  doubt,  if  we  wish  to  be  and  to 
remain  a  great  people,  a  world  power,  we  expose  our- 
selves to  serious  struggles.  But  this  must  not  alarm 
us.  There  is  profound  truth  in  the  dictum  that  man 
degenerates  in  peace  time.  The  call  to  arms  is  often 
needed  to  rouse  a  world  benumbed  with  apathy  and 
indolence.  Those  who  can  look  far  and  deeply  into 
things  see  that  warfare  is  often  a  blessing  to  humanity." 
This  German  is  a  disciple  of  Joseph  de  Maistre. 

I  have  shown  how  the  over-rapid  industrialization 
of  Germany  has  led  by  a  mechanical  and  fatal  process 
to  the  German  war.  If  any  doubt  were  felt  on  the 
part  played  by  economic  causes  in  this  war  it  would  be 
enough  to  look  at  the  picture  of  German  victory  as 
imagined  by  the  Germans  in  their  dreams  during 
the  last  seven  months.  It  is  an  industrial  victory,  a 
forced  marriage  between  German  coal  and  foreign  iron, 
the  reduction  of  nations  into  vassals  who  are  to  play  the 
part  of  perpetual  customers  of  the  German  workshops. 

"The  metalliferous  strata  of  French  Lorraine  and 
Russian  Poland,"  wrote  Baron  Zedlitz-Neukirch  some 
time  ago,  "supplement  in  some  degree  our  own  mining 
works."*  If  we  ask  the  impetuous  Max  Hardenf 
what  is  to  become  of  martyred  Belgium,  he  replies,  in 

*See  the  Temps,  February  23d. 

tQuoted  by  Waxweiller,  La  Belqique  neutre  et  toy  ale,  p.  115. 


ECONOMIC  GERMANY  315 

October,  1914,  "Antwerp  not  against  Hamburg  and 
Bremen,  but  with  them;  Liege,  working  side  by  side 
with  the  arms  factories  of  Hesse,  Berlin,  and  Swabia; 
Cockerill  in  alliance  with  Krupp;  Belgian  and  German 
iron,  coal,  and  textiles  under  one  control.  .  .  . 
From  Calais  to  Antwerp,  Flanders,  Limburg,  and 
Brabant,  up  to  and  beyond  the  line  of  fortresses  on 
the  Meuse,  all  Prussian/'  The  German  dream  is  the 
dream  of  a  conquering  man  of  business,  a  counting- 
house  romance  founded  on  Freytag's  Soil  und  Haben 
(Debit  and  Credit). 

The  war  they  thought  would  be  the  solution  of 
colonial  questions.  In  the  tragic  days  at  the  end  of 
July,  1914,  Bethmann-Hollweg  offered  England  to 
maintain  the  continental  integrity  of  France  (German 
industry  would  be  content  with  the  economic  annexa- 
tion of  France),  but  refused  any  pledge  to  respect 
French  colonies,  and  especially  North  Africa.  In 
September  they  had  the  audacity  to  offer,  as  the  price 
of  a  desertion  of  which  they  thought  us  capable,  to 
divide  with  us  the  Belgian  Congo,  toward  which 
the  treaty  of  1911  had  allowed  them  to  put  out  two 
feelers.*  A  German  used  this  candid  language:  "We 
have  need  of  France,  because  we  cannot  claim  the 
government  of  the  whole  non-English  colonial  world." 
At  the  same  time  they  attempted  by  stirring  up  revolt 
among  the  Boers  and  by  attacks  on  Portuguese  colonies 
to  build  up  a  German  Empire  in  South  Africa.  The 
victory  of  Germany  meant  for  them  security  of  iron 
supply  and  enlarged  markets:  it  meant  Briey,  Ouenza, 
Casablanca,  Bagdad. 

*Fr.  Naumann.     Deutschland  und  Frankreich,  1915. 


316  ECONOMIC  GERMANY 

The  vision  has  faded  and  the  building  of  their  dreams 
has  crumbled  away.  But  the  dream  has  left  its 
lessons  for  us,  which  demand  attention  not  only  in  the 
future  but  to-day.  Let  us  cherish  no  illusions.  Ger- 
many, though  conquered  and  curtailed,  will  not  cease 
to  exist.  It  is  idle  to  suppose,  as  some  publicists 
write,  that  we  are  going  to  suppress  a  whole  people. 
Even  if  we  had  the  military  power  to  do  it,  policy  and 
morality  would  forbid  us.*  After  our  victory  there 
will  once  more  be  a  Germany  which  will  patiently  and 
persistently  resume  its  labours.  The  great  war  will 
no  sooner  be  ended  than  the  other  war,  the  economic 
war,  will  begin  again.  If  we  do  not  wish  to  be  crushed 
we  must  to-day  begin  to  prepare  our  mobilization  for 
this  new  war. 

No  one  is  better  qualified  to  direct  this  movement 
than  your  society.  The  duty  is  laid  upon  it  not  only 
by  its  name  but  by  its  history.  It  came  into  being  at  a 
time  like  our  own  in  the  middle  of  a  great  war.  Its 
founders — men  like  Chaptal,  Monge,  Conte,  Fourcroy, 
Berthollet — conceived  their  work  as  one  of  national 
revival.  And  when  your  first  president,  Chaptal, 
published  his  two  fine  volumes,  De  V Industrie  francaise, 
in  1819,  the  programme  he  drew  up  was  none  other 
than  that  which  must  inspire  us  to-day — the  programme 
of  the  union  of  science  and  industry. 

*See  my  "Essai  sur  1'Allemagne  future."     (Revue  politique  et  parlementaire, 
March,  1915.) 


XV 
THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR 

(August,  1914,  to  August,  1915) 
By  The  Right  Hon.  A.  J.  BALFOUR 

First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty 


XV 

THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR 
(AUGUST,  1914,  TO  AUGUST,  1915). 

On  the  Slst  July,  1915,  the  First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty 
addressed  the  following  letter  to  Mr.  Tuohy  of  the  New 
York  World:— 

July  31,  1915. 
DEAR  MR.  TUOHY, — 

I  am  obliged  to  you  for  showing  me  a  copy  of  the 
communication  from  Count  Reventlow  -entitled  "A 
Year  of  Naval  Warfare/'  which  has  just  been  published 
in  the  New  York  World.  I  am  not  quite  sure  that  I 
comprehend  the  purpose  with  which  it  has  been  written, 
but  in  accordance  with  your  desire  I  am  making  a  few 
observations  upon  its  contents. 

The  introductory  paragraph  calls  for  no  comment 
from  me.  Count  Reventlow  explains  why  the  German 
fleet  was  not  completed  during  the  fifteen  years  which 
have  elapsed  since  the  first  Navy  Bill,  and  recounts 
some  of  the  political  miscalculations  of  the  German 
Government  through  which,  as  he  believes,  the  German 
fleet  in  the  North  Sea  has  been  put  in  a  position  of 
numerical  inferiority.  These  are  points  on  which 
perhaps  Count  Reventlow  speaks  with  authority;  in 
any  case  they  only  concern  his  own  country.  But 
when  he  incidentally  declares  that  England  "desired 

319 


320  THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR 

to  attack  Germany,"  he  blunders  into  a  controversy 
where  he  will  hardly  receive  so  respectful  a  hearing. 
The  world,  though  he  may  not  know  it,  has  long  made 
up  its  mind  as  to  who  is  the  aggressor  in  the  present 
war;  and  I  should  have  thought  it  hardly  worth  his 
while  to  repeat  such  charges  outside  the  limits  of  the 
German  Empire. 

The  main  purpose,  however,  of  Count  Reventlow's 
communication  is  to  praise  the  performances  of  the 
German  fleet;  and  certainly  it  is  no  purpose  of  mine  to 
belittle  the  courage  or  the  skill  of  the  sailors  composing 
it.  I  doubt  not  that  they  have  done  all  that  was  pos- 
sible both  in  the  honourable  warfare  to  which  doubtless 
they  were  inclined,  and  in  the  dishonourable  warfare 
required  of  them  by  their  superiors.  But  what,  in  this 
the  first  year  of  the  war,  have  they  accomplished  by 
either  method?  He  tells  us  that  we — the  British- 
have  failed  to  induce  the  German  fleet  to  come  out  and 
fight  us — and  certainly  we  have.  So  far  the  German 
fleet  has  thought  it  wise  to  avoid  engaging  a  superior 
force,  and  I  am  the  last  person  to  blame  them.  But 
this  surely  is  hardly  to  be  counted  as  a  triumph  of 
either  tactics  or  strategy;  it  is  a  military  exploit  which, 
however  judicious,  would  be  well  within  the  compet- 
ence of  the  least  efficient  fleet  and  the  most  incapable 
commander. 

The  truth  is  that  the  German  High  Sea  Fleet  has  so 
far  done  nothing,  and  probably  has  not  been  in  a  posi- 
tion to  do  anything.  At  the  beginning  of  the  war  we 
were  told  that  by  a  process  of  continual  attrition  it 
was  proposed  to  reduce  the  superior  British  fleet  ship 
by  ship  until  an  equality  was  established  between  the 


THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR     321 

two  antagonists.  The  design  has  completely  failed. 
The  desired  equality  is  more  remote  than  it  was  twelve 
months  ago;  and  this  would  be  true  even  if  certain 
extraordinary  misstatements  about  such  small  actions 
as  have  occurred  in  the  North  Sea  had  any  foundation 
in  fact.  He  tells  us,  for  example,  that  in  the  skirmish 
of  August  28,  when  some  German  cruisers  were  de- 
stroyed, the  English  squadron  suffered  heavy  damage. 
This  is  quite  untrue.  He  tells  us  again,  that  in  the 
skirmish  of  January  24  last,  when  the  Blucher  was  sunk, 
the  British  lost  a  new  battle  cruiser  (the  Tiger).  This 
is  also  untrue.  In  that  engagement  we  did  not  lose  a 
cockle  boat.  I  do  not  know  that  these  misstatements 
are  of  any  great  moment.  But  for  the  benefit  of 
those  who  think  otherwise,  let  me  say  that  in  no 
sea  fight,  except  that  off  the  coast  of  Chile,  has  any 
ship  of  the  English  fleet  been  either  sunk  or  seriously 
damaged. 

Apart  from  these  purely  imaginary  triumphs,  the 
only  performance  of  German  warships  in  the  North 
Sea  on  which  Count  Reventlow  dwells  with  pride  and 
satisfaction  is  the  attack  by  some  German  cruisers  on 
undefended  towns  in  Yorkshire.  This  exploit  was  as 
inglorious  as  it  was  immoral.  Two  or  three  fast  cruisers 
came  over  the  North  Sea  by  night;  at  dawn  they  bom- 
barded an  open  watering-place;  they  killed  a  certain 
number  of  civilian  men,  women,  and  children;  and,  after 
an  hour  and  a  half  of  this  gallant  performance,  retired  to 
the  safety  of  their  own  defended  waters.  Personally, 
I  think  it  better  to  invent  stories  like  the  sinking 
of  the  Tiger  than  to  boast  of  such  a  feat  of  arms  as 
this. 


322  THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR 

But  in  truth,  if  any  one  will  examine  Count  Re- 
ventlow's  apology  for  the  German  High  Sea  Fleet, 
he  will  find  that  it  amounts  to  no  more  than  praise  of 
German  mines  and  German  submarines.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  German  mines,  scattered  at  random  and 
with  no  warning  to  neutrals,  have  been  responsible  for 
the  destruction  of  much  neutral  shipping  and  of  some 
vessels  of  war.  The  first  result  is  deplorable;  the  second 
is  legitimate.  Mine-laying  is  not,  indeed,  a  very  glorious 
method  of  warfare;  though,  used  against  warships,  it  is 
perfectly  fair.  But  something  more  must  be  said 
about  submarines.  Anybody  reading  Count  Revent- 
low's  observations  would  suppose  that  submarines 
were  a  German  invention,  and  that  only  German 
foresight  had  realized  that  their  use  would  necessitate 
a  modification  in  battle-fleet  tactics.  But  this  truth 
has  been  among  the  commonplaces  of  naval  knowledge 
for  years  past,  and  was  no  more  hid  from  Washington 
and  London  than  from  Berlin  and  Vienna.  What 
was  new  in  the  German  use  of  submarines  was  not  their 
employment  against  ships  of  war,  but  their  employ- 
ment against  defenceless  merchantmen  and  unarmed 
trawlers.  This,  it  must  be  owned,  was  never  fore- 
seen either  in  Washington  or  London.  It  is  purely 
German.  But  Count  Reventlow  is  profoundly  mis- 
taken if  he  supposed  that,  during  the  year  which  has 
elapsed,  these  murderous  methods  have  affected  in  the 
slightest  degree  the  economic  life  of  England;  what 
they  have  done  is  to  fix  an  indelible  stain  upon  the 
fair  fame  of  the  German  navy. 

If  any  one  desires  to  know  whether  the  British  fleet 
has  during  the  last  year  proved  itself  worthy  of  its 


THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR     323 

traditions,  there  is  a  very  simple  method  of  arriving 
at  the  truth.  There  are  seven,  and  only  seven,  func- 
tions which  a  fleet  can  perform: — 

It  may  drive  the  enemy's  commerce  off  the  sea. 

It  may  protect  its  own  commerce. 

It  may  render  the  enemy's  fleet  impotent. 

It  may  make  the  transfer  of  enemy  troops  across  the 
sea  impossible,  whether  for  attack  or  defence. 

It  may  transport  its  own  troops  where  it  will. 

It  may  secure  their  supplies,  and  (in  fitting  circum- 
stances) it  may  assist  their  operations. 

All  these  functions  have  so  far  been  successfully  per- 
formed by  the  British  fleet.  No  German  merchant 
ship  is  to  be  found  on  the  ocean.  Allied  commerce 
is  more  secure  from  attack,  legitimate  and  illegitimate, 
than  it  was  after  Trafalgar.  The  German  High  Sea 
Fleet  has  not  as  yet  ventured  beyond  the  security  of 
its  protected  waters.  No  invasion  has  been  attempted 
of  these  islands.  British  troops,  in  numbers  un- 
paralleled in  history,  have  moved  to  and  fro  across  the 
seas,  and  have  been  effectively  supported  on  shore. 
The  greatest  of  military  Powers  has  seen  its  colonies 
wrested  from  it  one  by  one,  and  has  not  been  able  to 
land  a  man  or  a  gun  in  their  defence.  Of  a  fleet 
which  has  done  this  we  may  not  only  say  that  it  has 
done  much,  but  that  no  fleet  has  ever  done  more. 
And  we  citizens  of  the  British  Empire  can  only  hope 
that  the  second  year  of  the  war  will  show  no  falling 
off  in  its  success,  as  it  will  assuredly  show  no  relaxation 
of  its  efforts. 

Pray  believe  me,  yours  faithfully, 

ARTHUR  JAMES  BALFOUR. 


324  THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR 

Appended  is  the  communication  from  Count  Reventlow 
to  which  Mr.  Balfour  refers  and  replies: — 

A  YEAR  OF  NAVAL  WARFARE 

BY  COUNT  ERNST  zu  REVENTLOW 

When,  a  year  ago,  the  German  fleet  entered  the  great 
contest,  it  was  not  in  a  state  of  completion,  as  many 
persons  abroad  believe  it  to  have  been.  At  that  time 
the  German  fleet  had  been  for  some  fifteen  years  in  the 
process  of  being  regularly  built  up,  for  the  big  Navy 
Bill  had  not  become  a  law  until  the  summer  of  1900. 
In  that  year  the  German  navy  contained  only  two 
somewhat  modern  battleships.  It  was  calculated  at 
that  time  that  the  rebuilding  of  the  fleet  would  be 
completed  in  1920.  In  1906,  however,  came  the  great 
Dreadnought  revolution  in  shipbuilding  which  quickly 
rendered  worthless  all  ships  built  before  that  time 
(pre-Dreadnoughts),  and  compelled  tremendous  en- 
largements of  wharves,  harbours,  and  canals,  gigantic 
extension  of  organization,  &c.  The  work  of  complet- 
ing the  German  fleet  would  have  extended  itself  far 
beyond  the  year  1920  under  these  conditions.  If 
one  furthermore  takes  into  consideration  that — as  the 
authorities  of  all  lands  acknowledge — experience  shows 
that  it  requires  not  fifteen  but  thirty  years  to  build  up 
a  fleet  with  everything  that  belongs  thereto  on  water 
and  on  land,  it  is  clear  that  the  German  fleet  was  far 
from  being  ready  in  the  summer  of  1914.  And  to  this 
must  be  added  a  fact  that  has  been  overlooked :  in  1900, 
when  the  strength  of  the  German  fleet  was  decided  on, 
the  relations  of  England  to  France  and  to  Russia  were 


THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR     325 

bad.  England  had  to  maintain  strong  fleets  in  the 
Mediterranean  and  in  east  Asia.  The  alliance  with 
Japan  was  not  yet  in  existence.  If  these  conditions 
had  persisted,  Great  Britain  could  have  used  only  a 
part  of  its  fleet  in  a  war  with  Germany.  Since,  how- 
ever, Great  Britain  desired  to  attack  Germany  when 
the  proper  time  came,  it  allied  itself  at  the  right  mo- 
ment with  Russia,  France,  and  Japan,  and  was  thus 
able  to  use  its  entire  fleet  against  Germany  and  Ger- 
many's allies  from  August,  1914,  on.  Then,  in  the 
course  of  the  war,  Italy  came  in  with  its  considerable 
fleet.  The  allies  of  Great  Britain  also  employ  their 
fleets  in  the  home  waters  and  on  the  seas  against 
Germany  and  its  allies.  And  since,  as  is  well  known, 
the  fleets  of  Austria-Hungary  and  Turkey  are  very  small, 
the  German  fleet  has  had  to  battle  during  the  last  twelve 
months  against  an  extraordinarily  superior  might. 
What  has  the  German  fleet  achieved  in  this  year,  what 
has  it  lost,  according  to  what  plan  has  it  fought? 

Let  us  begin  with  the  last  question:  According  to 
what  plan  has  the  German  fleet  fought?  In  the  home 
waters  two  enemies  were  to  be  considered — Russia 
in  the  Baltic,  Great  Britain  in  and  beyond  the  North 
Sea.  In  view  of  the  number  of  Russian  ships  in  Baltic 
harbours,  the  Russian  fleet  could  by  no  means  be  taken 
lightly.  Since  the  fall  of  1914  a  half  dozen  English 
submarines  have  been  stationed  in  the  Baltic.  There- 
fore it  was  necessary  to  leave  a  portion  of  the  German 
fleet  there,  and  to  be  steadily  prepared  to  employ  still 
more  forces  in  the  Baltic  should  occasion  arise.  The 
greatest  part  of  the  German  fleet  lay,  of  course,  in  the 
North  Sea.  It  was  from  the  beginning  impossible 


326  THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR 

to  prevent  the  isolation  of  Germany  from  the  oceans; 
for,  on  the  one  hand,  the  German  North  Sea  harbours- 
above  all  the  basis  of  operations  of  the  German  fleet — 
are  too  far  distant  from  the  English  Channel  and  the 
northern  passage  from  the  North  Sea,  to  make  it 
possible  to  keep  these  open,  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  German  fleet  was  and  is  much  too  small.  At  the 
beginning  of  the  war,  and  especially  after  Great  Brit- 
ain had  taken  over  the  warships  being  built  in  British 
shipyards  for  other  nations,  the  German  fleet  was 
hardly  half  as  strong  as  the  British.  The  British  Isles 
lie  like  a  long  mole  before  the  North  Sea,  and  for 
this  reason  the  command  of  the  outlets  of  the  North 
Sea  is  very  easy  for  them.  The  British  ships  are  at 
all  times  near  their  bases  of  operations,  and  in  the  case 
of  the  English  Channel  there  exists  the  further  fact 
that  the  opposite  coast  belongs  to  the  ally,  France. 
The  commercial  blockade  could  and  can  be  easily 
carried  out  by  armed  merchantmen,  older  cruisers  and 
battleships,  light  cruisers  and  torpedo  boats,  so  that 
the  British  main  fleet  with  its  great  battleships  re- 
tains complete  strategic  freedom  of  action.  Therein 
lay  the  danger  for  the  small  German  fleet,  and  therein 
lay  also  the  military  necessity  of  employing  a  strategy 
of  reserve,  so  far  as  favourable  opportunities  did  not 
present  themselves.  In  view  of  the  unfortunate  geo- 
graphic position  of  the  North  Sea,  the  cutting  off  of 
overseas  traffic  could  not  be  prevented.  It  was  also 
the  intention  of  the  British  fleet  in  the  first  days  of  the 
war  to  carry  on  a  strategy  of  reserve  in  the  North  Sea, 
to  employ  good  opportunities  for  making  sallies,  and 
also  to  attempt  surprises.  The  cruiser  battle  in  the 


THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR     327 

Bay  of  Heligoland  on  August  28,  1914,  was  to  be  a 
surprise  of  this  nature.  It  cost  us  some  small  cruisers, 
and  it  cost  the  attacking  English  squadron  heavy 
damage,  despite  its  great  superiority.  This  battle 
was  without  any  significance  so  far  as  the  course  of 
the  war  was  concerned.  It  demonstrated  again,  how- 
ever, the  unfortunate  geographical  position  of  the 
German  coasts;  the  English  knew  that  the  German 
fleet  could  always  be  found  in  the  so-called  Bay  of 
Heligoland,  since  we  have  no  other  harbours  there. 
The  British  fleet,  on  the  other  hand,  which  had  before 
then  frequently  enough  been  hunted  for  by  our  torpedo 
boats,  was  not  tied  to  any  definite  place,  but  lay  at 
some  point  on  the  coasts  of  Great  Britain.  It  is  highly 
probable  that  the  leaders  of  Great  Britain's  campaign 
would  have  carried  on  a  strategy  of  sorties  alternating 
with  one  of  holding  back,  in  order,  on  the  one  side 
continuously  to  weaken  the  German  fleet  without 
running  any  serious  risk  to  themselves,  and  on  the 
other,  in  order  so  to  disorganize  and  provoke  it  that 
it  would  let  itself  be  induced  to  enter  a  great  deciding 
battle  under  unfavourable  conditions  and  in  an  un- 
favourable position.  These  plans  came  to  naught  be- 
cause of  the  entry  into  the  naval  warfare  of  a  factor 
which  the  British  Admiralty  had  not  anticipated. 
This  was  the  German  submarine  warfare — the  war  with 
mines  and  with  submarines.  Through  the  systematic 
strategic  employment  of  mines  and  submarines  the 
German  naval  leaders  have  in  a  short  time  succeeded 
in  making  a  continuous  stay  in  the  North  Sea  impossible 
for  the  British  main  fleet.  Only  occasionally  since  last 
fall  have  detachments  of  the  English  main  fleet  made 


328  THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR 

short,  rapid  sorties  into  the  North  Sea,  only  to  return 
immediately  to  the  Irish  Sea  or  to  the  waters  west 
and  north  of  Scotland.  This  meant  a  shattering  of 
all  English  plans  of  a  military  blockade  of  the  German 
coasts,  and  of  shutting  the  German  naval  forces  up  in 
the  German  harbours.  The  British  main  fleet  saw 
itself  unable  to  command  the  North  Sea.  Even  the 
mercantile  blockade  by  British  warships  could  not  be 
maintained,  since  the  German  submarines  had  become 
too  dangerous  for  the  large  British  cruisers  and  other 
warships.  Therefore  the  British  Admiralty  established 
a  gigantic  mine-field  at  the  entrance  to  the  North  Sea 
from  the  English  Channel,  and  proclaimed  other  por- 
tions of  the  North  Sea  a  military  zone  which  could  be 
traversed  by  neutral  ships  only  at  their  own  risk. 
This  was  a  violation  of  the  rights  of  neutral  shipping 
unheard  of  in  history;  the  neutrals  have  endured  it. 
The  British  Government  simultaneously  presented  as 
the  chief  means  of  their  campaign  the  starving  out  of 
the  German  people,  and  by  doing  so  drove  Germany 
to  its  submarine  warfare  on  British  commerce.  This 
is  still  proceeding  along  the  same  lines.  What  suc- 
cesses it  will  achieve  cannot  at  this  time  be  definitely 
said.  It  is,  however,  certain  that  the  submarine  war- 
fare has  a  growing  influence  upon  the  whole  economic 
life  of  Great  Britain.  No  one  would  have  considered 
possible  the  things  that  the  German  submarines  are 
here  accomplishing  and  have  accomplished.  It  stands 
without  example.  Nevertheless,  Germany  would  cer- 
tainly gladly  stop  this  submarine  war  against  com- 
merce if,  in  return,  the  freedom  and  safety  of  all 
floating  property  at  sea  were  guaranteed. 


THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR     329 

It  is  plainly  the  standpoint  of  the  British  Admiralty 
to  avoid  serious  encounter  with  the  German  fleet  ex- 
cept under  especially  favourable  conditions.  It  fears 
that  it  would  otherwise  have  too  few  ships  left,  and 
would  be  weaker  at  sea  than  the  United  States,  after 
the  war.  Whether  it  will  be  possible  for  the  British 
main  fleet  to  carry  through  this  role  depends  also  on 
many  circumstances  of  political  and  economic  nature. 
One  can  say,  however,  that  the  motives  for  holding 
back  the  main  fleets  on  both  sides  are  similar,  despite 
the  great  inequality  of  the  two  fleets.  In  any  event, 
it  is  correct  to  say  that  the  great  armoured  ships  do  not 
come  and  fight  for  fear  of  the  submarines;  for  there  are 
many  other  reasons  to  be  considered.  We  do  not,  it  is 
true,  command  the  North  Sea  without  submarines, 
but  we  have  through  them  made  it  impossible  for  the 
British  fleet  to  command  the  North  Sea.  That  is 
the  great,  historically  new  event  of  this  naval  war. 
The  German  submarines  have  everywhere  given  as- 
tounding examples  of  their  military  powers.  They 
have  even  voyaged  from  the  North  Sea  to  the  Dar- 
danelles, and  have  destroyed  a  number  of  English 
warships  there.  The  two  German  cruisers  Goeben  and 
Breslau,  it  is  known,  are  in  Turkish  waters.  At  the 
beginning  of  the  war  they  were  in  the  western  Mediter- 
ranean, and  they  succeeded  in  getting  through  the 
whole  French  fleet  from  Messina  to  the  Dardanelles. 
In  the  Black  Sea  these  two  cruisers,  in  conjunction 
with  the  Turkish  fleet,  have  repeatedly  fought  success- 
fully against  the  Russian  Black  Sea  fleet,  and  the  latter, 
despite  its  superior  might,  has  never  dared  make  an 
earnest  attack  in  the  Turkish  waters  of  the  Black  Sea. 


330  THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR 

The  cruiser  warfare  on  the  seas  was  conducted  inde- 
pendently of  all  actions.  The  few  German  cruisers 
here  were  from  the  start  on  a  lost  post.  They  had  no 
supporting  bases,  and  found  themselves  facing  a  tre- 
mendously superior  force  of  British,  French,  Japanese, 
and  Russian  warships.  Mr.  Churchill  has  declared  in 
the  House  of  Commons  that  there  were  in  all  about 
ninety  warships  of  every  description  hunting  for  the 
few  German  cruisers.  Then*  situation  was,  therefore, 
extremely  difficult,  and  their  destruction  earlier  or 
later  was  assured.  Their  actions  could,  indeed,  damage 
the  enemy,  but  they  could  have  no  influence  on  the 
course  of  the  war.  Nevertheless,  Count  Spee  suc- 
ceeded with  his  squadron  in  destroying  an  English 
cruiser  squadron  on  the  Chilian  coast.  Spec's  squadron 
was  then  destroyed  by  a  tremendously  superior  enemy 
force  in  the  battle  off  the  Falkland  Islands.  An  end 
was  also  put  to  the  glorious  career  of  the  cruiser  Emden. 
Well-informed  persons  in  Germany,  as  has  been  said, 
had  never  based  any  hopes  on  this  cruiser  warfare, 
for  they  knew  that  the  forces  were  lacking  to  carry  it 
out  on  a  large  scale,  and  for  any  long  time.  But  the 
glory  which  the  German  sea  fighters  have  won  for  them- 
selves on  the  oceans  constitutes  a  lasting  success  and  a 
gain  which  cannot  be  lost.  In  every  contest  they  have 
demonstrated  that  they  can  be  destroyed  only  by  su- 
perior English  forces,  and  that,  ship  for  ship,  they  are 
superior  to  the  English.  We  have  experienced  the 
same  thing  in  the  home  waters,  as,  for  instance,  in  the 
cruiser  battle  in  the  North  Sea  in  January,  1915. 
Here,  the  German  cruiser  squadron  was  weaker,  the 
English  squadron  was  superior  in  ships  and  gun  calibres. 


THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR     331 

Despite  this,  the  losses  of  the  English  squadron  were 
very  much  the  heavier;  it  lost  the  new  battleship 
cruiser  Tiger,  the  battleship  cruiser  Lion  was  put  out 
of  action,  and  all  the  other  cruisers  were  heavily 
damaged.  On  the  German  side,  only  the  older  cruiser 
Blucher  was  lost,  which  ought  not  to  have  been  brought 
into  the  battle  at  all.  The  three  German  battleship 
cruisers  were  hit  by  only  two  English  projectiles,  one 
of  which  glanced  off  the  armour  while  the  other  did 
damage  aft,  without  affecting  the  ship's  fighting  strength. 
Then,  as  on  August  28th,  and  on  the  seas,  it  has  al- 
ways been  manifest  that  the  German  ships  shot  better 
than  the  British. 

The  losses  of  the  German  fleet  in  the  first  year  of  the 
war  are  very  small.  It  has  lost  not  a  single  ship  of  the 
first  class,  but  only  a  few  submarines  and  torpedo 
boats,  some  small  cruisers  and  a  few  older  cruisers. 
The  German  fleet  looks  to  the  future  with  confidence, 
and  even  though  it  has,  because  of  the  considerations 
referred  to,  carried  on  a  strategy  of  reserve  and  of 
waiting,  it  has,  on  the  other  hand,  repeatedly  shown 
that  it  possesses  full  freedom  of  action  in  the  North 
Sea.  The  German  fleet  has  coursed  about  in  the 
North  Sea  a  great  number  of  times,  and  at  times,  as 
is  known,  has  even  advanced  to  the  English  coasts 
in  order  to  bombard  English  coast  defences  and  marine 
stations. 

The  last  twelve  months  have  demonstrated  that  the 
days  of  absolute  British  supremacy  are  at  an  end. 
Ten  years  ago  the  Civil  Lord  of  the  British  Admiralty, 
Mr.  Lee,  declared  that  the  British  dreadnoughts 
would  be  on  the  German  coasts  before  the  news  of  the 


332  THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR 

breaking  out  of  war  appeared  in  the  German  papers. 
The  last  twelve  months  have  shown  that  Mr.  Lee  was 
a  bad  prophet.  The  German  fleet  and  the  German 
people  await  with  confidence  the  events  of  the  coming 
twelve  months. 

FRUITS  OF  THE  BATTLE  OF  JUTLAND 

STATEMENT   BY   MR.    BALFOUB 

The  First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty  has  issued  the  follow- 
ing message: — 

The  second  anniversary  of  the  British  declaration 
of  war  provides  a  fitting  opportunity  for  a  brief  survey 
of  the  present  naval  situation.  Public  attention  is 
inevitably  concentrated  upon  the  great  military  opera- 
tions by  which  the  Allies  are  pressing  with  ever- 
increasing  severity  upon  the  Central  Powers  from  the 
east,  the  west,  and  the  south;  and  though  none  of  us 
are  likely  to  ignore  the  part  which  the  Navy  plays  in 
the  campaign,  it  is  not  easy  even  for  those  who  reflect 
much  on  these  subjects  to  see  things  in  their  true  per- 
spective; for  those  who  content  themselves  with  the 
daily  bulletins  it  is  impossible.  They  cannot  believe 
that  anything  important  is  done  when  nothing  import- 
ant seems  to  happen. 

It  is  true  that  the  great  battle  off  Jutland  for  a 
moment  broke  the  monotony  of  the  naval  situation, 
and  its  consequences,  moral  and  material,  cannot 
easily  be  overrated.  An  Allied  diplomatist  assured 
me  that  in  his  view  it  was  the  turning  point  of  the 
war.  The  tide  which  had  long  ceased  to  help  our 


THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR     333 

enemies  began  from  that  moment  to  flow  strongly  in 
our  favour.  This  much  at  least  is  true,  that  every 
week  which  has  passed  since  the  German  High  Seas 
Fleet  was  driven  damaged  into  port  has  seen  a  new 
success  for  the  Allies  in  one  part  or  other  of  the  field 
of  operations. 

It  would  be  an  error,  however,  to  suppose  that  the 
naval  victory  changed  the  situation;  what  it  did  was 
to  confirm  it.  Before  Jutland,  as  after  it,  the  German 
Fleet  was  imprisoned;  the  battle  was  an  attempt  to 
break  the  bars  and  burst  the  confining  gates;  it 
failed,  and  with  its  failure  the  High  Seas  Fleet  sank 
again  into  impotence. 


THE   GERMAN    "VICTORY" 


It  may  perhaps  be  objected  that  this  is  but  a  British 
view  of  British  triumphs,  and  that  German  accounts  of 
naval  doings  tell  a  very  different  story,  and  leave  a 
very  different  impression  upon  the  military  student. 
But  this  is  not  so.  Study  the  German  utterances  with 
care,  and  you  will  find  that  they  give  precisely  the 
same  general  impression  of  British  sea  power  and  the 
naval  position  as  that  which  I  have  just  expressed. 
It  is  quite  true  that  they  call  that  a  victory  which  the 
rest  of  the  world  calls  a  defeat.  But  though  they  talk 
in  German,  their  meaning  can  quite  easily  be  expressed 
in  intelligible  English,  for  in  essence  both  parties  are 
agreed. 

After  all,  the  object  of  a  naval  battle  is  to  obtain 
the  command  of  the  sea,  or  to  keep  it;  and  it  is  cer- 
tain that  Germany  has  not  obtained  it,  and  that 
we  have  not  lost  it.  The  tests  of  this  assertion  are 


334  THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR 

easy  to  apply.  Has  the  grip  of  the  British  blockade 
relaxed  since  May  31?  Has  it  not,  on  the  contrary, 
tightened?  Is  it  or  is  it  not  becoming  more  difficult  for 
the  Germans  to  import  raw  materials  and  foodstuffs; 
and  to  pay  for  them  by  the  export  of  their  manu- 
factures? The  Germans  themselves  will  admit  that 
it  is  becoming  more  difficult.  Hence  the  violence  of 
their  invectives  against  Britain;  and  hence  their 
unwearied  repetition  of  the  cry  that  Britain  is  the 
arch  enemy  that  must  at  all  costs  be  humbled  to 
the  dust. 

Again,  if  they  felt  themselves  on  their  way  to  mari- 
time equality,  would  they  spend  so  much  breath  in 
advertising  the  performances  of  the  submarine  which, 
flying  a  commercial  flag,  carried  280  tons  of  German 
produce — to  say  nothing  of  an  autograph  letter  of  the 
Kaiser — from  Bremen  to  Baltimore?  The  operation 
itself  involved  no  naval  difficulty.  Its  commercial 
results  were  necessarily  infinitesimal;  its  whole  interest 
in  German  eyes  lay  in  the  fact  that  by  using  a  sub- 
marine they  could  elude  the  barrier  raised  by  the  Brit- 
ish fleet  between  them  and  the  outer  world;  a  barrier 
which  they  knew  their  own  fleet  could  neither  break 
nor  weaken. 

But  sea  power  shows  itself  not  merely  in  denying 
the  waterways  of  the  world  to  the  enemy,  but  in 
using  them  for  your  own  military  purposes.  And 
here  again  there  is  a  singular  discrepancy  between 
German  boats  about  the  greatness  of  the  German 
fleet  and  German  admissions  about  its  impotence. 
Since,  nearly  two  years  ago,  England's  "contemptible 
little  army"  was  sent  into  France,  a  steady  and  ever- 


NAVY  AND  THE  WAR  335 

increasing  flow  of  men  and  munitions  has  been  poured 
across  the  waters  of  the  Channel.  It  has  reached 
colossal  proportions;  its  effects  on  the  war  may  well 
be  decisive;  yet  never  has  it  been  more  secure  from 
attack  by  enemy  battleships  or  cruisers  as  it  has  been 
since  the  German  "victory"  of  May  31. 

GERMAN   BOATS 

But  there  are  longer  sea  routes  and  more  distant 
operations  which  in  this  connection  it  is  fitting  to 
remember.  It  seems  that  on  the  German  anniversary 
of  the  war  the  German  Press  bade  the  German  public 
to  take  comfort  from  an  attentive  study  of  the  map. 
"See,"  they  said,  "how  much  enemy  territory  both 
in  the  east  and  in  the  west  the  armies  of  the  fatherland 
occupy;  see — and  take  heart."  The  amount  of  com- 
fort, however,  which  the  study  of  maps  is  capable  of 
conveying  depends  partly  on  the  maps  you  choose. 
Even  the  map  of  Europe  shows  an  ever-shrinking 
battle-line.  But  why  look  only  at  Europe?  Ger- 
many for  twenty  years  has  advertised  itself  as  a  great 
colonial  Power;  and  it  was  to  conquer  and  maintain 
its  position  as  a  great  colonial  Power  that  German 
fleets  were  built. 

Let  us,  then,  choose  a  map  which  contains  her  over- 
sea Empire.  At  the  beginning  of  August,  1914, 
Germany  possessed  colonies  in  the  China  Seas,  in  the 
Malay  Archipelago,  in  the  Pacific  Ocean,  in  West 
Africa,  in  Southwest  Africa,  in  East  Africa.  All 
have  gone  except  the  last;  and  the  last  whilst  I  write 
seems  slipping  from  her  grasp.  The  Navy  has  not 
conquered  them;  in  the  actual  fighting  by  which  they 


336  THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR 

have  been  or  are  being  acquired  the  Navy  has  taken  a 
very  important  yet  not  the  leading  part.  But  without 
the  British  navy  to  contain  the  German  fleet,  the  opera- 
tions which  bid  fair  to  strip  Germany  of  every  one  of 
her  oversea  possessions  could  not  have  been  success- 
ful— could  not  even  have  been  attempted. 

Has,  then,  the  battle  of  Jutland,  opened  up  the 
smallest  prospect  of  Germany's  regaining  what  she  has 
lost?  Can  it  give  a  moment's  respite  to  the  hard- 
pressed  colonists  in  German  East  Africa?  I  doubt 
whether  it  has  ever  occurred  to  any  German  (and 
I  am  sure  it  has  occurred  to  nobody  else)  that  any- 
thing which  the  German  fleet  has  done,  is  doing,  or 
can  do  will  delay  for  one  moment  the  final  triumph  of 
General  Smuts  over  the  last  of  Germany's  oversea 
possessions. 

SUBMARINE   WARFARE 

If  any  desire  yet  further  proof  of  the  value  which  the 
Germans  really  attach  to  their  "victorious"  fleet 
I  advise  them  to  study  the  German  policy  of  submarine 
warfare.  The  advantage  of  submarine  attacks  on 
commerce  is  that  they  cannot  be  controlled  by  su- 
perior fleet  power  in  the  same  way  as  attacks  by 
cruisers.  The  disadvantage  is  that  they  cannot  be 
carried  out  on  a  large  scale  consistently  with  the  laws 
of  war  or  the  requirements  of  humanity.  They 
make,  therefore,  a  double  appeal  to  German  militar- 
ism; an  appeal  to  its  prudence  and  an  appeal  to  its 
brutality.  The  Germans  knew  their  "victorious"  fleet 
was  useless;  it  could  be  kept  safe  in  harbour  while 
submarine  warfare  went  on  merrily  outside.  They 


THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR     337 

knew  that  submarines  could  not  be  brought  to  action 
by  battleships  or  battle  cruisers.  They  thought, 
therefore,  that  to  these  new  commerce  destroyers 
our  merchant  ships  must  fall  an  easy  prey,  unpro- 
tected by  our  ships  of  war  and  unable  to  protect  them- 
selves. 

They  are  wrong  in  both  respects;  and  doubtless 
it  is  their  wrath  at  the  skill  and  energy  with  which 
British  merchant  captains  and  British  crews  have 
defended  the  lives  and  property  under  their  charge 
that  has  driven  the  German  Admiralty  into  their 
latest  and  stupidest  act  of  calculated  ferocity — the 
judicial  murder  of  Captain  Fryatt. 

I  do  not  propose  to  argue  this  case;  it  is  not  worth 
arguing.  Why  should  we  do  the  German  military 
authorities  the  injustice  of  supposing  that  they  were 
animated  by  any  solicitude  for  the  principles  of  inter- 
national law  and  blundered  into  illegality  by  some 
unhappy  accident?  Their  folly  was  of  a  different 
kind,  and  flowed  from  a  different  cause.  They  knew 
quite  well  that  when  Captain  Fryatt's  gallantry  saved 
his  ship  the  Germans  had  sunk  without  warning 
twenty-two  British  merchant  ships,  and  had  attempted 
to  sink  many  others.  They  knew  that  in  refusing 
tamely  to  submit  himself  to  such  a  fate  he  was  doing 
his  duty  as  a  man  of  courage  and  of  honour.  They 
were  resolved  at  all  costs  to  discourage  imitation! 


"FREEDOM  OF  THE  SEAS" 


What  blunderers  they  are!  I  doubt  not  their 
ability  to  manipulate  machines.  But  of  managing 
men,  unless  it  be  German  men,  they  know  less  than 


338  THE  NAVY  AND  THE  WAR 

nothing.  They  are  always  wrong;  and  they  are 
wrong  because  they  always  suppose  that  if  they  be- 
have like  brutes  they  can  cow  their  enemies  into  be- 
having like  cowards.  Small  is  their  knowledge  of  our 
merchant  seamen.  Their  trade,  indeed,  is  not  war— 
they  live  by  the  arts  of  peace.  But  in  no  class  does 
patriotism  burn  with  a  purer  flame,  or  show  itself  in 
deeds  of  higher  courage  and  self-devotion.  I  doubt 
whether  there  is  one  of  them  to  be  found  who  is  not 
resolved  to  defend  himself  to  the  last  against  piratical 
attack;  but  if  such  a  one  there  be,  depend  upon  it  he  will 
be  cured  by  the  last  exhibition  of  German  civilization. 

And  what  must  the  neutrals  think  of  all  this?  They 
are  constantly  assured  by  German  advocates  that 
the  Central  Powers  are  fighting  for  the  "freedom 
of  the  seas."  It  is  a  phrase  with  different  meanings 
in  different  mouths;  but  we  have  now  had  ample 
opportunities  of  judging  what  it  means  to  the  Ger- 
mans. It  means  that  the  German  navy  is  to  behave 
at  sea  as  the  Germany  army  behaves  on  land.  It 
means  that  neither  enemy  civilians  nor  neutrals  are 
to  possess  rights  against  militant  Germany;  that 
those  who  do  not  resist  will  be  drowned,  and  those 
who  do  will  be  shot.  Already  244  neutral  merchant 
ships  have  been  sunk  in  defiance  of  law  and  of  hu- 
manity; the  number  daily  grows.  Mankind  with 
now  two  years'  experience  of  war  behind  it  has  made 
up  its  mind  about  German  culture;  it  is  not,  I  think, 
without  material  for  forming  a  judgment  about  Ger- 
man freedom. 

ARTHUR  JAMES  BALFOUR. 

Admiralty,  August  4. 


XVI 

GREAT  BRITAIN'S  MEASURES 
AGAINST  GERMAN  TRADE 

By  The  Rt.  Hon.  SIR  E.  GREY, 

Secretary  of  State  far  Foreign  Afain 


XVI 

GREAT   BRITAIN'S   MEASURES   AGAINST 
GERMAN  TRADE 

A  speech  delivered  by  the  Rt.  Hon.  Sir  Edward  Grey, 
Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  in  the  House  of 
Commons  on  the  %6th  January,  1916. 

THE  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs  (Sir 
Edward  Grey):  The  Right  Hon.  gentleman 
who  has  just  spoken  (Mr.  Leverton  Harris) 
has  made  a  most  interesting  speech,  full  of  knowledge, 
and  founded  upon  personal  experience.  The  Right 
Hon.  gentleman  is  one  of  those,  of  whom  there  are 
several  in  the  House  and  many  outside,  who  have 
been  giving  most  devoted  service  on  committees  in 
carrying  out  the  policy  of  the  Government  with  regard 
to  contraband.  There  have  been  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  war  a  number  of  people  of  great  knowledge 
and  experience  who  have  given  their  services  volun- 
tarily on  these  various  committees,  and  whose  services 
have  been  of  enormous  value.  I  think  the  House 
will  have  gathered  from  the  Right  Hon.  gentleman's 
speech  that  the  subject  with  which  we  are  dealing  is 
not  really  so  simple,  and  cannot  be  made  so  simple,  as 
might  appear  from  some  of  the  speeches  that  are  made 
upon  it  and  some  of  the  articles  which  appear  outside. 
It  is  a  most  difficult  and  complicated  subject.  I  gather 

841 


342  GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE 

from  the  debate,  as  far  as  it  has  gone,  that  there  is  real 
misapprehension  in  the  House  as  to  what  is  the  present 
state  of  things  with  regard  to  the  amount  of  trade  pass- 
ing through  neutral  countries  to  the  enemy,  and 
also  real  misapprehension,  and  a  vast  under-estimate, 
of  what  the  Government  is  doing  through  its  various 
agencies  to  prevent  that  trade.  In  the  first  place,  I 
must  deal  with  some  of  the  figures  scattered  broadcast 
lately  in  some  organs  of  the  Press,  which  have  created  a 
grotesque  and  quite  untrue  impression  of  the  amount 
of  leakage  through  neutral  countries — figures  which 
wjll  not  bear  examination,  but  the  conclusions  founded 
upon  which  have  undoubtedly  done  great  harm.  The 
figures  consist,  as  far  as  I  have  seen  them,  of  statistics 
from  the  official  returns  of  the  United  States  giving 
the  amount  of  exports  to  certain  neutral  countries  in 
Europe  in  a  normal  year  of  peace.  Figures  are  then 
given  which, purport  to  be  the  excess  figure  for  those 
same  neutral  countries  at  the  present  time,  these  figures 
being  greatly  in  excess  of  the  peace  figures.  The  peace 
figures  are  then  subtracted  from  the  figures  of  last 
year,  and  the  conclusion  is  drawn  that  the  whole  of 
that  surplus  has  gone  to  Germany.  On  that  are 
founded  various  attacks  upon  the  Government.  These 
figures  published  in  this  way  do  a  great  injustice— 
or  rather  attacks  founded  upon  these  figures  do  a 
great  injustice — to  the  Government.  The  figures  take 
no  account  of  the  fact  that  in  the  case  of  many  of  these 
articles  in  time  of  peace  neutral  countries  do  not  draw 
the  whole  of  their  supplies  from  the  United  States. 
They  draw  them  from  enemy  countries,  or  from 
sources  which  are  not  available  to  them  in  time  of  war. 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE    343 

Therefore,  to  take  the  exports  from  the  United  States 
into  these  countries,  and  to  assume  that,  because  these 
exports  have  risen  therefore  the  large  surplus  which 
has  been  imported  into  neutral  countries  has  gone  into 
enemy  countries,  entirely  leaves  out  of  account  the 
fact  that  in  very  many  cases  the  increased  exports 
from  the  United  States  have  been  for  real  consump- 
tion in  those  neutral  countries,  and  have  taken  the 
place  of  the  supplies  which  in  peace  time  have  been 
drawn  from  other  sources  than  the  United  States,  and 
are  not  now  available. 

In  the  next  place,  the  figures  of  exports  from  the 
United  States  give  the  amount  of  stuff  which  left  the 
ports  of  the  United  States.  These  do  not  necessarily 
correspond  with  the  amount  of  stuff  which  arrives  in 
the  neutral  ports.  What  is  the  cause  of  all  the  trouble 
and  the  very  great  friction  that  there  has  been  with 
the  meat-packers  of  the  United  States?  It  is  because 
a  large  amount  of  the  produce  coming  from  the  United 
States  consigned  to  neutral  ports,  which  we  believed 
was  destined  for  the  enemy,  never  reached  the  neutral 
ports.  It  is  in  the  Prize  Court  here.  So  at  one  and 
the  same  time  the  Foreign  Office,  or  the  Government, 
is  having  a  very  warm  contention  indeed  with  neutral 
Governments,  or  groups  of  people  in  neutral  countries, 
on  the  ground  that  we  have  put  their  produce  into  the 
Prize  Court  here  and  detained  it  and  at  the  same 
time  we  are  being  attacked  in  this  country  on  the 
ground  that  that  very  same  produce  has  gone  through 
neutral  countries  into  the  enemy  countries!  Some 
figures  have  been  published  in  the  Press  to-day  giving 
a  very  different  impression  of  the  true  state  of  the 


344    GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE 

case  as  regards  the  neutral  countries  and  the  enemy — 
figures  published  by  the  War  Trade  Department.  I 
recommend  that  those  figures  should  be  studied,  for 
they,  at  any  rate,  reduce  the  thing  to  very  different 
proportion. 

But  I  have  had  some  other  figures  supplied  to  me, 
out  of  which  I  am  going  to  take  two  striking  instances. 
The  statement  has  been  made  in  one  organ  of  the 
Press,  hi  regard  to  wheat,  that  the  exports  of  wheat 
from  the  United  States  to  Norway,  Sweden,  Den- 
mark, and  the  Netherlands  collectively,  rose  from 
19,000,000  bushels  in  the  first  ten  months  of  1913— 
that  is,  the  year  of  peace — to  50,000,000  bushels  in  the 
corresponding  period  of  1915 — that  is  to  say,  an  ex- 
cess of  31,000,000  bushels.  The  conclusion  is  drawn 
that  that  has  all  gone  to  the  enemy  through  those 
neutral  countries.  It  is  almost  incredible,  if  the  figures 
supplied  to  me  are  reliable — and  I  believe  they  are — 
that  a  statement  of  that  kind  should  have  been  made. 
Those  50,000,000  bushels  from  the  United  States  are 
the  figures  given  under  a  collective  heading  in  the 
United  States  returns,  which  comprises,  not  merely 
these  four  Scandinavian  countries,  but  "other  Europe," 
including  Spain,  Portugal,  Greece,  and  Malta;  so  that 
these  50,000,000  bushels  not  only  go  to  Norway, 
Sweden,  Denmark,  and  Holland,  but  also  include  the 
exports  to  Spain,  Portugal,  Greece,  "and  Malta.  The 
exports  to  Spain,  Portugal,  Greece,  and  Malta  alone 
amounted  to  23,000,000  bushels.  That  is  a  very 
large  part  of  the  whole  increase.  Why  do  these  coun- 
tries take  so  much?  Because  no  doubt  they  depended, 
I  presume,  in  ordinary  years,  very  largely  on  grain 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE    345 

corning  from  Black  Sea  ports  which  has  ceased  to  be 
available.  Therefore  there  is  no  need  to  assume  that 
Spain,  Portugal,  Greece,  and  Malta  were  importing 
wheat  in  order  to  pass  on  to  the  enemy;  they  wanted  it 
to  supply  the  grain  which  they  would  have  got  in  nor- 
mal years  from  other  sources. 

From  the  figures  that  remain  some  millions  more 
bushels  must  be  deducted  which  have  been  allowed  to 
go  through  under  special  international  arrangements 
to  the  Belgian  Relief  Fund.  When  you  have  deducted 
those  you  find  that  these  four  countries — the  three 
Scandinavian  countries  and  Holland — which  were  sup- 
posed to  have  sent  31,000,000  bushels  on  to  the  enemy, 
had  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  imported  at  all  in  excess 
of  their  normal  requirements,  and  there  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  any  of  these  bushels  got  to  the  enemy. 
Then  I  take  the  figures  quoted  in  the  Press  for  wheat- 
flour.  The  figures  quoted  suggest  an  increase  in  the 
exports  of  wheat-flour  from  the  United  States  to  Holland 
and  the  three  Scandinavian  countries  in  the  first  ten 
months  of  1915,  over  the  corresponding  period  of  1913, 
of  3,700,000  barrels;  the  assumption  again  being  that 
that  had  all  gone  to  the  enemy.  This  increase  includes 
not  merely  what  went  to  those  four  countries,  but  also 
includes  an  increase  to  France  of  1,400,000  barrels,  and 
to  Italy  of  250,000  barrels.  In  addition,  there  was 
something  over  1,000,000  allowed  to  go  through  to  the 
Belgian  Relief  Fund,  making,  with  the  increase  to 
France  and  to  Italy,  a  total  of  3,000,000  barrels.  Out 
of,  therefore,  3,700,000  barrels  supposed  to  have 
gone  to  the  enemy  there  is  accounted  for  3,000,000 
barrels.  The  actual  increase  to  the  three  Scandinavian 


346    GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE 

countries  is,  therefore,  reduced  from  3,700,000  barrels 
to  only  650,000  barrels.  In  view  of  the  deficiency  of  the 
whole  production  of  wheat  in  Scandinavia  in  1914, 
this  increase,  according  to  the  information  supplied 
to  me,  cannot  be  regarded  as  excessive.  That  puts  the 
thing  in  a  very  different  light. 

Leakage,  of  course,  through  neutral  countries  there 
has  been,  and  will  be.  Whatever  you  do,  if  you  adopt 
every  suggestion  made  in  this  House,  you  cannot  pre- 
vent some  leakage.  You  cannot  take  over  the  ad- 
ministration of  neutral  countries.  You  cannot  prevent 
smuggling  taking  place  even  against  the  regulations 
of  the  neutral  countries  themselves.  It  is  not  in  our 
power  to  do  that  under  whatever  system  you  have, 
whether  you  call  it  blockade,  or  whatever  name  you 
give  to  it.  You  have  still  to  let  through  to  neutral 
countries  the  things  which  they  really  require  for  their 
own  consumption.  You  have,  therefore,  to  distinguish 
between  the  things  which  they  need  for  their  own  con- 
sumption and  the  things  which  they  import  with  a  view 
to  their  being  passed  on  to  the  enemy.  You  have  to 
make  that  distinction.  Nobody  could  have  listened 
to  the  speech  of  my  Right  Hon.  friend  the  member  for 
East  Worcestershire  (Mr.  Harris)  "without  realizing 
how  impossible  it  is  to  do  that  perfectly.  You  have 
every  sort  of  ingenuity  brought  to  bear  to  make  it 
difficult  for  you  to  distinguish — to  make  it  absolutely 
impossible,  whatever  the  Navy  may  do,  whatever 
strict  provision  there  may  be,  to  make  sure  that  in 
no  case  will  a  cargo,  or  part  of  a  cargo  which  is  appar- 
ently destined  for  consumption  in  a  neutral  country 
but  really  is  destined  for  the  enemy,  go  through  to 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE    347 

that  neutral  country.  Some  leakage  there  will  always 
be.  We  have  been  anxious  about  that  leakage.  We 
have  done  what  we  can  to  get  real  information  as  to 
what  is  going  on.  The  other  day  Lord  Faringdon, 
who  a  short  time  ago  was  well  known  in  this  House 
as  Sir  Alexander  Henderson,  went  over  to  make  in- 
quiries on  the  spot.  He,  is,  at  least,  as  well  qualified 
by  ability,  knowledge,  and  experience  to  ascertain  the 
facts  as  any  one  who  could  be  sent  on  behalf  of  any 
unofficial  agency.  He  has  produced  a  report.  That 
report  does  not  say  that  there  is  no  leakage,  but  I  think, 
on  the  whole,  it  is  a  very  satisfactory  report.  In  my 
opinion  it  shows  that  the  amount  of  leakage  in  the 
trade  passing  from  overseas  through  these  neutral 
countries  to  the  enemy  is,  considering  all  the  facts  of 
the  case,  much  less  than  might  have  been  supposed. 
The  general  tendency  of  the  report  is  to  show  that 
the  maximum  which  can  be  done  is  being  done  without 
serious  trouble  with  neutral  countries,  founded  upon 
the  idea  that  you  are  really  interfering  with  their 
supplies. 

SIR  H.  DALZIEL:  Can  we  see  that  report? 

SIR  EDWARD  GREY:  No,  the  report  cannot  be  pub- 
lished. You  cannot  make  these  inquiries  and  publish 
the  information  obtained  without  its  being  known  to 
the  enemy.  If  it  is  known  to  the  enemy  your  power  of 
getting  further  information,  and  of  watching  what  is 
going  on — the  actual  facts  even  of  what  is  going  on  is 
useful  to  the  enemy — will  be  diminished.  I  do  not, 
however,  see  any  objection  to  the  report  being  shown  in 
a  way  in  which  knowledge  of  it  cannot  get  to  the  enemy. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  report  to  conceal  from  people 


348    GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE 

who  are  looking  at  the  matter,  and  examining  it  from 
the  point  of  view  from  which  the  House  is  examining  it 
this  afternoon.  All  that  there  is  to  be  concealed 
is  from  the  opposite  point  of  view — that  is,  the  enemy 
point  of  view. 

I  pass  from  those  figures  to  another  charge  which  is 
made,  not,  I  understand,  in  the  debate  here,  not  in 
all  the  Press,  but  in  some  organs  of  the  Press,  and  by 
some  persons  outside,  in  a  most  offensive  form,  which  is 
grossly  unfair  and  untrue.  It  is  that  the  Navy  is 
doing  its  utmost  to  prohibit  goods  reaching  the  enemy, 
and  that  the  Foreign  Office  is  spoiling  the  work  of  the 
Navy.  When  ships  are  brought  in  by  the  Navy  to  a 
port  with  goods  destined  for  the  enemy,  the  Foreign 
Office,  it  is  alleged,  orders  those  ships  to  be  released, 
and  undoes  the  work  which  the  Navy  is  doing.  I  must 
give  the  House  an  account  of  what  is  exactly  the  ma- 
chinery. I  do  not  say  that  in  the  first  three  months 
of  the  war,  before  we  had  got  our  organization  com- 
plete, there  was  not  a  certain  amount  of  confusion 
and  overlapping,  and  that  things  were  so  well  done  as 
now.  I  will  take  the  whole  of  last  year  up  to  the  present 
date.  What  is  the  procedure?  One  of  the  ships  under 
the  Admiralty  brings  into  port  a  neutral  merchant 
vessel  carrying  a  cargo  which  the  naval  officers  think 
may  be  destined  for  the  enemy.  They  have  no  ade- 
quate means  of  searching  that  cargo  on  the  high  seas; 
it  has  to  be  done  in  port.  Until  you  have  got  that 
vessel  in  port  you  cannot  really  form  an  opinion  of 
what  is  the  probable  destination  of  the  cargo.  The 
ship  is  brought  into  port  by  the  Navy.  If  that  ship 
turns  out  to  have  goods  destined  not  merely  for  a 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE    349 

neutral  port,  but  for  bona-fide  consumption  of  a  neutral 
country,  without  which  that  country  would  be  starved 
of  some  supplies  which  it  has  every  right  to  have,  that 
cargo  obviously  ought  to  be  released,  and  not  put  in 
the  Prize  Court  at  all.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is 
reason  to  suppose  that  that  cargo  is  not  destined  for 
bona-fide  neutral  use,  then  undoubtedly  it  ought  to  be 
put  in  the  Prize  Court.  That  is  settled  by  the  Contra- 
band Committee. 

The  Contraband  Committee  is  presided  over  at 
present  by  the  Hon.  and  learned  member  for  Leam- 
ington (Mr.  Pollock),  who,  again,  is  one  of  those 
giving  invaluable  service  to  the  State.  Before  he 
undertook  the  chairmanship  it  was  presided  over  by 
my  Right  Hon.  and  learned  friend  who  is  now  the 
Solicitor-General,  who,  of  course,  had  to  give  up  that 
position  when  he  became  Solicitor-General,  because  it 
was  impossible  to  combine  it  with  his  official  work. 
How  is  the  committee  composed?  Besides  the  chair- 
man, it  is  composed  of  one  representative  of  the  Foreign 
Office,  one  who  represents  the  Board  of  Trade  and 
Customs  combined,  and  two  representatives  of  the 
Admiralty,  and  that  committee,  which  has  acquired 
very  great  experience  in  the  course  of  its  work,  settles 
the  question  of  whether  the  ship,  or  any  part  of  the  cargo 
in  the  ship,  ought  to  be  put  in  the  Prize  Court,  or 
whether  it  ought  to  be  released  and  go  forward.  I 
believe  that  committee  has  done  its  work  admirably, 
and  that  neither  the  country  nor  the  Navy  has  any 
reason  but  to  be  exceedingly  grateful  for  the  knowledge 
and  ability  it  has  shown  and  the  pains  it  has  taken. 
Can  the  decision  of  that  committee  be  interfered  with? 


350    GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE 

Of  course  it  can  be  interfered  with.  The  Government 
can  in  any  case  say  if  such-and-such  a  ship,  which  the 
committee  thinks  ought  to  be  detained,  ought  for  special 
reasons  to  be  released.  I  have  made  what  inquiry  I 
can,  and,  in  accordance  with  my  own  recollection,  I 
think  in  the  last  year  there  have  been  three  cases  when 
ships  have  been  dealt  with  or  undertakings  about 
ships  have  been  given  without  consulting  the  committee. 
Two  of  those  ships  were  cases  of  ships  which  were 
released  and  sent  back.  Those  two  cases  were  dis- 
cussed twice  by  the  Cabinet,  and  those  two  particular 
ships  were  released  for  special  reasons.  The  third 
case  is  that  of  a  ship  which  was  brought  into  port  the 
other  day — the  Stockholm,  a  Swedish  vessel.  It  is  a 
ship  to  which  the  Swedish  people  attach  great  im- 
portance. It  is,  I  believe,  the  first  ship  of  a  new  line, 
a  passenger  vessel.  The  detention  of  it  must  cause 
great  inconvenience,  but  it  had  on  board  a  cargo  which, 
I  understand,  the  Contraband  Committee  had  reason 
to  suppose — I  think  rightly — was  not  all  destined  for 
use  in  Sweden,  and  might  be  sent  on  to  the  enemy. 
Anyhow,  the  detention  of  the  vessel  caused  great  in- 
convenience, and  a  special  appeal  was  made  from  the 
Swedish  Government  in  regard  to  that  particular 
vessel,  and  with  regard  to  one  part  of  the  cargo  a  special 
assurance  was  given.  Of  course  these  things  have  to 
be  done  rapidly  if  they  are  to  be  done  at  all.  If  you 
are  to  release  a  vessel,  and  wish  to  avoid  inconvenience, 
you  must  release  it  quickly;  and,  after  consulting  the 
Prime  Minister  and  the  First  Lord  of  the  Admiralty,  I 
sent  a  telegram  to  Stockholm  saying  that  if  we  could 
receive  assurances  from  the  Swedish  Government  that 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE    351 

the  cargo,  which  seemed  to  us  suspect,  was  destined  for 
bona-fide  use  in  Sweden,  and  that  none  of  it  would  go 
on  to  the  enemy,  or  set  free  an  equivalent  amount 
of  corresponding  material  to  go  on  to  the  enemy, 
the  ship,  in  order  to  avoid  inconvenience,  was  to  be 
released  at  once.  That  undertaking  was  given  with- 
out consulting  the  Contraband  Committee.  I  am 
sorry  to  say,  as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  we  have  not 
received  an  assurance,  and,  therefore,  no  action  has 
been  taken.  That  is  the  sort  of  case  in  which,  unless 
you  are  to  forfeit  entirely  the  good  will  of  neutrals, 
unless  you  are  to  take  what  I  consider  an  unduly  high- 
handed and  provocative  action,  you  ought  to  say  to 
a  neutral  country  which  makes  a  special  case  of  incon- 
venience caused  in  regard  to  a  ship,  "Give  us  assur- 
ances with  regard  to  that  cargo,  and,  rather  than  cause 
that  inconvenience,  we  will  be  prepared  to  release  the 
ship."  That,  I  believe,  represents  the  extent  of  inter- 
ference with  the  Contraband  Committee  with  regard 
to  the  release  of  ships  in  the  last  twelve  months. 

Now  I  would  ask,  really,  is  it  not  time  after  that 
that  these  reckless  figures  and  these  reckless  state- 
ments should  not  be  made  with  regard  to  the  action 
of  the  Foreign  Office  or  any  Department  of  the  Govern- 
ment? What,  is  it  supposed,  is  the  effect  upon  the 
Navy  of  making  charges  of  that  sort? 

THE  FIRST  LORD  OF  THE  ADMIRALTY  (MR.  BAL- 
FOUR):  Hear  hear! 

SIR  EDWARD  GREY:  If  the  charges  made  were  true, 
and  I  was  a  naval  officer,  I  should  want  to  shoot 
the  Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs.  But 
that  is  not  the  thing  that  matters.  The  thing  that 


352    GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE 

matters  is  the  dispiriting  effect  it  has  on  our  seamen. 
There  never  was  a  time  in  the  whole  history  of  this 
country  when  we — and  when  I  say  "we,"  I  mean  our 
allies,  too — have  owed  a  greater  tribute  of  gratitude 
and  admiration  to  the  Navy  than  for  the  work  done 
during  this  war.  To  those  of  us  who  have  to  bear  the 
brunt  of  much  work,  and  face  much  difficulty,  the 
knowledge  of  the  efficiency,  the  courage,  the  spirit,  and 
the  patriotism  which  animate  the  whole  Navy  is  an 
upholding  and  a  supporting  thought,  and  there  ought 
not  to  be  statements  of  that  kind,  entirely  unfounded 
as  they  are,  put  about,  leading  the  Navy  to  suppose 
that  the  work  which  they  are  doing  for  the  country, 
or  any  part  of  their  work,  is  being  undone  by  the 
Government,  or  any  department  of  the  Government. 

The  task  of  the  Foreign  Office  in  this  matter  is  a 
much  more  complicated  one  and  much  more  burden- 
some than  people  know.  The  Foreign  Office  is  not 
burdened  as  a  department  with  deciding  about  the 
release  of  particular  ships.  That,  as  I  have  shown,  if 
it  is  not  done  by  the  Contraband  Committee,  is  done 
by  the  Cabinet,  or,  in  a  very  special  case,  by  Ministers; 
but  it  is  not  done  departmentally  now.  What  is  the 
work  the  Foreign  Office  has  to  do?  The  Foreign  Office 
has  to  do  its  best  to  retain  the  good  will  of  the  neutrals. 
Now,  supposing  you  know  at  the  Foreign  Office  that 
the  War  Office,  the  Admiralty,  the  Ministry  of  Muni- 
tions, and  perhaps  one  or  more  of  our  allies  are  specially 
anxious  that  you  should  maintain  open  communication 
with  some  particular  neutral  country  for  strategical 
reasons,  or  for  the  sake  of  supplies  which  you  get  from 
them.  We  are  constantly  being  told  that  certain 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE    353 

supplies  which  come  from  abroad  are  absolutely  es- 
sential for  the  Ministry  of  Munitions.  The  Board  of 
Trade  know  that  certain  other  supplies  from  abroad 
are  absolutely  necessary  to  carry  on  the  industries  of 
this  country.  The  business  of  the  Foreign  Office  is 
to  keep  the  diplomatic  relations  such  that  there  is  no 
fear  of  these  supplies  being  interfered  with,  and  we 
have  got  at  the  same  time  to  defend,  to  explain,  and 
to  justify  to  neutral  countries  all  the  interference 
that  has  taken  place  with  trade  destined  for  the  enemy, 
which  cannot  be  done  without  some  direct  or  indirect 
interference  also  with  neutral  countries.  That  is  not 
an  easy  matter.  It  is  one  in  which  the  Foreign  Office 
is  constantly  engaged,  and  I  think  the  House  must 
recognize,  when  members  are  pressing,  as  they  are 
quite  right  in  pressing,  this  question  of  supplies  to  the 
enemy,  and  saying,  quite  rightly,  that  the  interests  of 
this  country  come  first  that  you  must  also  be  very 
careful  that  you  do  not  unduly  or  wrongfully  interfere 
with  the  rights  of  neutrals  to  get  supplies  which  are 
necessary  for  their  own  consumption.  You  have 
no  right  to  make  neutrals  suffer.  I  would  like  to 
consider — and  it  is  rather  germane  to  the  case — what 
more  can  be  done  than  is  being  done  consistently 
with  the  rights  of  neutrals  and  also  with  effect?  The 
Hon.  member  who  moved  this  motion  sketched  out 
what  he  thought  ought  to  be  done,  and  I  think  the 
Hon.  member  who  seconded  the  motion  agreed  with 
him.  The  suggestion  was  that  there  should  be  three 
lines  of  blockade,  one  extending  to  the  coast  of  Norway, 
one  across  the  Channel,  and  one  across  the  Straits  of 
Gibraltar.  If  you  establish  those  lines  of  blockade  you 


354    GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE 

must  do  it  consistently  with  the  rights  of  neutrals. 
You  cannot  establish  those  lines  of  blockade  and 
say  that  no  ships  shall  go  through  them  at  all,  or  you 
will  stop  all  traffic  of  every  kind  to  the  neutral  ports 
inside.  You  would  stop  all  traffic  to  Christiania, 
Stockholm,  Rotterdam,  Copenhagen — all  traffic  what- 
ever. Well,  of  course,  that  is  not  consistent  with 
the  rights  of  neutrals.  You  cannot  shut  off  all  sup- 
plies to  neutral  countries.  You  must  not  try  to  make 
the  grass  grow  in  the  streets  of  neutral  ports.  You 
must  let  through  those  lines  vessels  bonafide  destined 
for  the  neutral  ports  with  bona-fide  cargoes.  Nor 
can  you  put  every  cargo  in  your  Prize  Court,  and  say 
it  is  not  to  go  on  to  a  neutral  port  until  the  Prize  Court 
has  examined  it.  The  congestion  in  this  country  would 
be  such  that  you  could  not  deal  with  it  if  you  did  that, 
and  you  have  no  right  to  say  that  the  British  Prize 
Court  is  to  be  the  neck  of  the  bottle  through  which 
all  trade  has  to  pass.  If  we  had  gone,  or  attempted 
to  go,  as  far  as  that,  I  think  the  war  possibly  might 
have  been  over  by  now,  but  it  would  have  been  over 
because  the  whole  world  would  have  risen  against 
us,  and  we,  and  our  allies,  too,  would  have  collapsed 
under  the  general  resentment  of  the  whole  world.  If 
you  establish  those  lines,  then  the  ship  to  neutral 
ports  with  a  bona-fide  neutral  cargo  must  be  allowed  to 
go  through.  Therefore  what  I  understand  is  meant 
when  you  say  blockade  is  that  you  are  going  to  dis- 
criminate, and  not  stop  everything  that  is  going  through 
your  lines,  but  only  stop  what  is  destined  to  the  enemy 
and  let  go  through  what  is  for  neutrals.  That  is  what 
is  being  done^at  the  present  time,  and  that  is  actually 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE    355 

the  action  of  the  Admiralty  to-day.  The  ships  when 
brought  in  are  dealt  with  by  the  method  which  I  have 
described,  and  no  ships  are  going  through  to  German 
ports  at  all.  Therefore  that  is  actually  being  done. 
We  are,  as  I  think  one  Hon.  member  said,  filtering 
the  trade  which  passes  through  with  the  object  of 
stopping  all  the  enemy  trade.  We  are  stopping  the 
trade  coming  out,  and  we  are  also  stopping  the  imports; 
more  than  that  you  cannot  do.  You  cannot  do  more 
than  stop  all  imports  into  the  enemy  country  and  all 
exports  coming  out. 

We  are  applying  the  doctrine  of  continuous  voyage, 
and  it  is  being  applied  now.  On  what  other  ground 
are  goods  to  neutral  ports  held  up  but  on  the  ground  of 
continuous  voyage?  Do  not  let  it  be  supposed  by 
adopting  the  actual  proposal  made  this  afternoon  we 
are  going  to  prevent  goods  reaching  Germany  more 
effectively  than  at  the  present  time,  except  in  one 
respect.  If  you  had  established  the  old  technical 
blockade  you  would  no  doubt  have  been  entitled  to 
confiscate  more  largely  ships  and  goods  than  at  the 
present  time.  While  you  stop  now  and  detain  them, 
and  do  not  let  the  goods  go  through,  you  do  not  con- 
fiscate as  largely  as  you  would  if  you  had  had  the  old 
technical  blockade.  One  of  the  reasons  why  this 
change  is  recommended  is  that  it  is  going  to  be  more 
palatable  to  the  neutrals,  but  you  are  not  going  to 
make  it  more  palatable  by  making  the  penalties  more 
severe.  What  we  want  to  do  is  to  prevent  goods 
reaching  or  coming  from  the  enemy  country,  and  that 
is  what  we  are  doing.  We  want  to  do  it,  and  we  be- 
lieve that  under  the  Order  in  Council  it  is  being  done. 


356    GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE 

Do  not  let  it  be  supposed  that  the  Order  in  Council 
does  something  special  either  to  validate  or  invalidate. 
The  mover  of  this  motion  spoke  as  if  an  order  in  council 
was  one  thing  and  a  blockade  was  another.  What 
would  have  happened  if  we  had  adopted  his  plan  would 
be  that  we  should  simply  substitute  one  order  in  council 
for  the  present  one.  The  blockade  would  be  estab- 
lished by  the  Order  in  Council.  An  order  in  council 
does  not  make  a  thing  good  or  bad.  It  is  merely  our 
way  under  our  form  of  constitution  of  announcing  to 
the  world  what  we  are  doing. 

MR.  S.  BENN:  Will  the  Right  Hon.  Gentleman  deal 
with  the  point  that  the  Allied  nations  should  declare 
the  blockade,  rather  than  England  by  an  order  in 
council? 

SIR  EDWARD  GREY:  That  is  a  very  pertinent  ques- 
tion, but  it  again  shows  a  misapprehension.  If  we 
all  declared  a  blockade  the  French  Government  would 
declare  a  blockade  in  their  own  way,  according  to  their 
constitution,  and  we  should  declare  it  in  our  way. 
What  is  happening  at  the  present  moment,  to  carry  out 
the  policy  of  last  March,  is  that  certain  instructions  are 
issued  to  the  British  navy.  The  French  Government 
issued  precisely  the  same  instructions  to  their  navy, 
and  so,  if  we  and  the  Allied  nations  declared  a  blockade 
they  would  issue  their  own  proclamation  of  a  blockade, 
and  we  should  issue  ours.  That  is  the  way  it  would  be 
done,  precisely  the  same  as  now.  The  French  have 
issued  exactly  the  same  proclamation  on  their  behalf  as 
we  have  in  regard  to  our  proclamation  of  March.  The 
only  thing  is  that  you  have,  under  the  British  constitu- 
tion, to  call  it  an  order  in  council,  although  other 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE    357 

people  may  call  it  whatever  they  please.  You  would 
not  have  any  change  in  that  respect.  I  quite  agree 
that  you  want  common  action  with  your  allies,  and 
that  is  precisely  what  we  have  been  having  ever  since 
last  March  with  the  French  Government.  If  any  one 
wishes  to  realize  the  justification  for  our  present  policy 
they  have  only  got  to  read  the  correspondence  which 
has  been  published  with  the  United  States  already. 
If  they  wish  to  read  the  objections  taken  to  it,  and  the 
objections  which  any  sort  of  policy  might  lead  to,  they 
can  read  the  notes  from  the  United  States  Government 
to  this  country,  especially  the  last  note  which  has  been 
published,  and  which  has  not  yet  been  answered. 

We  are  going  to  answer  the  last  note  of  the  United 
States  Government,  but  we  are  considering  the  whole 
question,  and  we  are  going  to  do  it  in  consultation, 
hi  the  first  instance,  with  the  French  Government 
who  are  concerned  in  this  matter.  That  consultation 
is  taking  place  at  the  present  time  with  a  view  to  pur- 
suing not  merely  the  same  policy,  but  justifying  it  with 
the  same  arguments,  and  putting  the  same  case  before 
the  world.  We  may  also  consider  it,  perhaps  with 
some  of  the  other  Allies,  who  may  have  to  be  actively 
concerned  in  carrying  out  the  policy.  At  present 
we  are  in  consultation  with  the  French  Government  on 
the  subject.  I  can  only  say,  with  regard  to  neutrals, 
that  we  are  perfectly  ready  to  examine  any  method 
of  carrying  out  the  policy  of  last  March,  that  is  what 
we  believe  is  the  belligerent  right  of  stopping  enemy 
trade,  either  to  or  from.  We  are  ready  to  examine  any 
other  method  of  carrying  that  out,  than  the  one  we  are 
now  adopting  which  we  are  convinced  will  be  effec- 


358    GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE 

live,  and  which  in  form  is  likely  to  be  more  agree- 
able to  neutrals,  or  in  practice  less  inconvenient  to 
them,  so  long  as  it  will  be  effective.  But  do  not  let 
us  hastily  adopt  changes  of  form  unless  we  are  quite 
sure  that  they  are  not  going  to  impair  the  effectiveness 
of  what  we  are  doing,  and  that  they  are  not  going  to 
involve  us  in  legal  difficulties  more  complicated  than 
those  which  at  present  exist. 

I  must  say  to  the  House  that  at  the  present  moment 
one  of  the  greatest  concerns  of  the  Government  is  to 
explain  and  justify  to  neutrals  what  we  are  doing  to 
avoid  friction  with  them,  and  to  get  such  agreements, 
not  with  their  Governments,  but  with  the  various 
people  interested  in  trade,  as  will  make  it  easy  to  dis- 
tinguish between  goods  destined  for  the  neutrals, 
and  goods  intended  for  the  enemy.  I  said  just  now 
that  we  have  not  any  right  to  make  neutrals  suffer. 
By  that  I  mean  that  you  have  no  right  to  deprive 
neutrals  of  goods  which  are  genuinely  intended  for 
their  own  use.  Inconvenience  it  is  impossible  to  avoid, 
and  you  cannot  help  it.  What  I  would  say  to  neutrals 
is  this:  We  cannot  give  up  this  right  to  interfere  with 
enemy  trade;  that  we  must  maintain  and  that  we  must 
press.  We  know,  and  it  has  always  been  admitted, 
that  you  cannot  exercise  that  right  without  in  some 
cases  considerable  inconvenience  to  neutrals — delay 
to  their  trade,  and  in  some  cases  mistakes  which  it  is 
impossible  to  avoid.  What  I  would  say  to  neutrals  is 
this:  There  is  one  main  question  to  be  answered  by 
them.  Do  they  admit  our  right  to  apply  the  prin- 
ciples which  were  applied  by  the  American  Govern- 
ment in  the  war  between  North  and  South?  Do  they 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE    359 

admit  our  right  to  apply  those  principles  to  modern 
conditions  and  to  do  our  best  to  prevent  trade  with 
the  enemy  through  neutral  countries?  If  they  say 
"Yes,"  as  they  are  bound  in  fairness  to  say,  then  I 
would  say  to  them,  "Do  let  chambers  of  commerce,  or 
whatever  it  may  be  in  neutral  countries,  do  their 
best  to  make  it  easy  for  us  to  distinguish."  Take 
the  case  of  the  Stockholm,  the  Swedish  ship,  the  other 
day.  When  it  was  pointed  out  what  great  incon- 
venience we  were  causing  by  detaining  that  ship  it 
was  also  suggested  that  in  order  to  avoid  detention  in 
future  there  should  be  some  understanding  or  some 
means  of  making  it  sure  to  us  that  the  cargo  was  bona 
fide  a  Swedish  cargo  and  not  going  to  the  enemy.  That 
is  the  sort  of  thing  we  welcome. 

What  we  ask  of  them,  as  we  cannot  avoid  causing 
inconvenience  and  in  some  cases  loss,  is  that  they  will 
help  us  to  distinguish  by  making  the  distinction  bona- 
fide  trade  and  thereby  minimize  the  inconvenience.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  answer  is  that  we  are  not  en- 
titled to  do  that,  or  to  attempt  to  prevent  trade  through 
the  neutral  countries  to  the  enemy,  then  I  must  say 
definitely  that  if  neutral  countries  were  to  take  that 
line  it  is  a  departure  from  neutrality.  I  do  not  under- 
stand that  they  do  take  that  line.  It  is  quite  true  that 
there  are  things  in  the  last  note  from  the  United  States 
Government  which,  if  we  were  to  concede  them,  would 
make  it  in  practice  absolutely  impossible  to  prevent 
goods,  even  contraband,  going  wholesale  through  neu- 
tral countries  to  the  enemy.  If  you  were  to  concede 
all  that  was  asked  in  the  last  note  of  the  United  States 
you  might  just  as  well  give  up  trying  to  prevent  goods, 


360    GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE 

even  contraband  goods,  going  through  neutral  coun- 
tries to  the  enemy,  but  I  do  not  understand  that  that 
is  the  intention  or  attitude  of  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment or  of  any  other  Government.  After  all,  I  would 
say  this:  If  there  was  a  war  in  which  a  belligerent  was 
entitled  to  use  to  the  utmost  every  power,  or  every 
fair  development  of  a  power  which  has  been  exercised 
by  any  belligerent  in  previous  wars,  and  recognized  by 
international  law,  that  applies  to  our  allies  and  our- 
selves in  this  war. 

As  to  the  complaints  as  to  our  interference  with 
trade,  what  has  Germany  done?  She  has  declared 
arbitrarily  a  part  of  the  high  seas  a  war  zone,  and  in 
that  zone  she  has  continually  sunk  merchant  vessels 
without  notice  or  warning,  with  no  precautions  for  the 
safety  of  the  crews,  sowing  it  with  mines  which  sink 
merchant  vessels,  neutrals  as  well  as  belligerents. 
The  sinking  of  merchant  vessels  is  not  confined  to 
belligerents.  A  neutral  vessel  is  sunk  again  and  again 
by  German  submarines  without  warning,  without  in- 
quiry as  to  the  nature  of  its  cargo,  and  without  regard 
even  to  its  destination,  because  they  have  been  sunk 
proceeding  from  one  neutral  port  to  another  neutral 
port  and  not  coming  to  this  country  at  all.  In  view 
of  the  criticism  made  to-day  upon  the  action  of  the 
British  Government  and  its  allies  in  interfering  with 
trade,  I  would  ask  what  would  have  been  said  by  neu- 
trals if  we  had  done  that?  What  would  have  been 
said  if,  instead  of  bringing  cargoes  into  our  Prize  Court, 
bringing  in  the  ship  with  the  crew  perfectly  safe,  the 
ship  undamaged,  the  cargo-  untouched,  examining  it, 
and  in  some  cases  letting  it  go  forward  when  satisfied 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE    361 

that  it  is  not  destined  for  the  enemy,  and  even  in  the 
worst  case  putting  it  into  our  Prize  Court,  so  that  if 
it  turns  out  that  we  have  made  a  mistake  there  can 
be  a  claim  for  compensation  and  the  whole  of  the  evi- 
dence can  be  examined — if,  instead  of  doing  that,  we 
had  sunk  neutral  vessels  without  regard  to  the  char- 
acter of  their  cargoes  and  without  regard  to  the  safety 
of  the  lives  of  innocent  and  defenceless  crews? 

An  HON.  MEMBER:  And  passengers! 

Well,  of  course,  in  regard  to  passengers,  as  the 
House  knows,  there  has  been  considerable  controversy 
between  the  United  States  Government  and  the  enemy 
Government.  They  have  taken  up  the  point  with 
regard  to  passengers  where  their  own  interests  are  con- 
cerned, but,  with  regard  to  the  rest,  the  sinking  of 
even  neutral  merchant  vessels  in  this  way,  so  far  as  I 
know  nothing  like  the  kind  of  protest  has  been  made 
by  neutral  governments  that  has  been  made  with  re- 
gard to  some  part  of  our  own  procedure  which  we 
believe  to  be  perfectly  justifiable  in  law,  and  which 
is,  beyond  all  doubt,  perfectly  humane. 

I  understand  that  Germany  justifies  her  action  of 
that  description  by  saying  that  it  is  retaliation  upon  us 
for  stopping  her  food  supply.  The  great  case  of  stop- 
ping food  supplies  which  Germany  made  the  starting- 
ground  for  her  illegal  and  inhuman  policy  being  the 
fact  that  we  detained  the  Wilhelmina  early  last  Febru- 
ary with  foodstuffs  to  Germany.  Was  that  the  first 
instance  of  interfering  with  food  supplies  destined  for 
the  civil  population  in  this  war?  Before  that  Germany 
had  sunk  two  neutral  vessels  with  cargoes  of  food- 
stuffs coming  to  open  ports  for  the  civil  population  of 


362    GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE 

this  country.  She  had  requisitioned  the  food  supply 
of  the  civil  population  of  Belgium,  and  I  understand 
that  to-day  confiscation  goes  on  in  the  occupied  dis- 
tricts of  Poland.  It  was  not  till  a  powerful  inter- 
national organization  came  into  force  to  relieve  the 
starvation  of  Belgians,  whose  food  had  been  requisi- 
tioned by  Germany  in  their  own  country — not  till  then 
—that  there  was  any  protection  for  the  food  of  the 
civil  population  in  the  districts  occupied  by  Germany. 
What  right  has  Germany  to  complain  of  measures 
taken  to  interfere  with  her  food  supplies  when,  from  the 
beginning  of  this  war,  her  armed  cruisers,  so  long  as 
they  could  keep  the  seas,  sunk  neutral  merchant 
vessels  with  food  for  the  civil  population  of  this  coun- 
try, and  in  effect  treated  food  where  they  found  it  as 
absolute  contraband?  That  being  so,  what  we  say 
to  neutrals  is  that  we  are  entitled  to  claim  the  utmost 
rights  to  which  we  can  fairly  found  a  claim  upon  the 
recognized  practice — practice  which  we  ourselves  have 
recognized — of  other  belligerents  in  previous  wars. 

Let  us  also  bear  this  in  mind.  I  do  not  say  that  we 
are  exercising  these  measures  of  blockade  the  least 
bit  more  for  our  allies  than  for  ourselves.  If  we  had  no 
allies  I  have  no  doubt  that  we  should  have  done  pre- 
cisely the  same  thing,  and,  as  the  House  says,  it  is  our 
duty  to  this  country  to  do  it  as  effectively  as  possible. 
But  do  not  let  us  forget  that  it  is  our  duty  to  our  allies 
as  well.  We  are  in  this  war  with  allies,  a  war  forced 
upon  Europe  after  every  effort  had  been  made  to  find  a 
settlement  which  could  perfectly  easily  have  been 
found  either  by  conference  as  we  suggested,  or  by 
reference  to  The  Hague  Tribunal,  as  the  Emperor  of 


GREAT  BRITAIN  AND  GERMAN  TRADE    363 

Russia  suggested.  Prussian  militarism  would  not 
have  any  other  settlement  but  war.  We  are  now  in 
this  war  with  our  allies.  I  say  nothing  of  what  the 
actual  conditions  of  peace  will  be,  because  those  are 
things  which  we  must  discuss  with  our  allies  and  settle 
in  common  with  them.  But  the  great  object  to  be 
attained — and,  until  it  is  attained,  the  war  must  pro- 
ceed— is  that  there  shall  not  again  be  this  sort  of 
militarism  in  Europe,  which  in  time  of  peace  causes  the 
whole  of  the  Continent  discomfort  by  its  continual 
menace,  and  then,  when  it  thinks  the  moment  has  come 
that  suits  itself,  plunges  the  Continent  into  war.  The 
whole  of  our  resources  are  engaged  in  the  war.  Our 
maximum  effort,  whether  it  be  military,  naval,  or 
financial,  is  at  the  disposal  of  our  allies  in  carrying  on 
this  contest.  With  them  we  shall  see  it  through  to  the 
end,  and  we  shall  slacken  no  effort.  Part  of  that  effort 
is  and  must  remain — whether  it  be  in  .the  interests  of 
ourselves  or  of  our  allies — in  the  interests  of  the  great 
cause,  .the  great  transcending  cause  which  unites  us  all 
together,  which  makes  us  feel  that  national  life  will 
not  be  safe,  that  individual  life  will  not  be  worth  living, 
unless  we  can  achieve  successfully  the  object  of  this 
war — that  in  that  common  cause  we  shall  continue 
to  exert  all  our  efforts  to  put  the  maximum  pressure 
possible  upon  the  enemy;  and  part  of  that  pressure 
must  be  and  continue  to  be  doing  the  most  we  can  to 
prevent  supplies  going  to  or  from  the  enemy,  using  the 
Navy  to  its  full  power,  and  in  common  with  our  allies 
sparing  nothing,  whether  it  be  military,  naval,  or  finan- 
cial effort,  which  this  country  can  afford  to  see  the 
thing  through  with  them  to  the  end. 


XVII 
WHAT  BRITAIN  IS  FIGHTING  FOR 

By  The  Rt.  Hon.  H.  H.  ASQUITH 

Prime  Minieter 


XVII 
WHAT  BRITAIN  IS  FIGHTING  FOR 

A  reply  to  the  German  Chancellory  a  speech  delivered  on 
the  10th  April,  1916. 

A  DINNER  was  given  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment on  the  10th  April,  1916,  to  the  French 
Senators  and  Deputies  who  were  then  on  a 
visit  to  London  as  the  guests  of  the  Franco-British 
Parliamentary  Committee.  In  proposing  the  toast 
"Our  Guests,"  Mr.  Asquith,  Prime  Minister  of  the 
United  Kingdom,  spoke  as  follows: — 

I  have  now  the  pleasure  of  proposing  the  toast  of 
"  Our  Guests,"  and  I  venture,  in  your  name,  in  the  name 
of  His  Majesty's  Government,  and  in  the  name  of  the 
members  of  both  Houses  of  the  British  Parliament,  to 
offer  the  warmest  welcome  to  our  French  colleagues  who 
have  done  us  the  honour  to  pay  us  this  visit.  [Cheers.] 

The  relations  between  Great  Britain  and  France  have 
been  established  happily  upon  unshakable  foundations, 
and  during  the  testing  experiences  of  this  war  those 
relations  have  become  marked  by  intimacy  and  af- 
fection. We  welcome  these  visits  as  tending  to  draw 
still  closer  the  bonds  that  unite  us,  the  bonds  of  the 
common  purpose  which  we  share.  [Cheers.] 

During  the  last  few  days  the  Imperial  Chancellor 
has  been  appealing  once  more  to  the  sympathy  of  the 

367 


368     WHAT  BRITAIN  IS  FIGHTING  FOR 

neutral  world  for  the  hard  case  of  Germany.  Germany 
has  been  misunderstood.  Her  peace-loving  purpose 
has  been  misconstrued. 

The  Chancellor  declares  that  on  December  9th  he 
had  expressed  his  readiness  to  enter  into  peace  negotia- 
tions, but  that  then  as  now  the  enemy  declined  to  con- 
sider such  a  thing.  It  is  worth  while  to  cite  the  actual 
language  which  he  used  on  the  occasion  referred  to. 
"If  I  am  to  speak  of  peace  proposals  I  must  first  see 
the  peace  proposals  of  our  enemies.  If  our  enemies 
come  to  me  with  peace  proposals  proper  to  the  dignity 
and  assuring  the  safety  of  Germany,  then  we  are  always 
ready  to  discuss  them." 

What,  therefore,  the  Chancellor  means  by  a  readiness 
on  his  part  to  enter  into  negotiations  is  that  the  initia- 
tive should  come  from  us,  and  the  decision  rest  with 
him.  In  other  words,  we  are  to  assume  the  attitude  of 
a  defeated  to  a  victorious  adversary.  But  we  are  not 
defeated  [cheers];  we  are  not  going  to  be  defeated 
[cheers];  and  the  Allies  are  bound  by  a  solemn  pact 
not  to  seek  or  accept  a  separate  peace.  [Cheers.] 

GUILDHALL   PLEDGE   EXPLAINED 

The  terms  upon  which  we  are  prepared  to  conclude 
peace  are  the  accomplishment  of  the  purposes  for  which 
we  took  up  arms.  Those  purposes  were  declared  by 
me  as  far  back  as  November,  1914,  and  have  been 
known  to  the  world  for  more  than  sixteen  months. 
I  said  among  other  things  that  we  should  not  sheathe 
the  sword  until  the  military  domination  of  Prussia  is 
wholly  and  finally  destroyed.  [Cheers.] 

The  Chancellor  first  misquotes  my  language  and  then 


WHAT  BRITAIN  IS  FIGHTING  FOR     369 

proceeds  to  distort  its  obvious  meaning  and  intention. 
Great  Britain,  and  France  also,  entered  the  war  not 
to  strangle  Germany,  not  to  wipe  her  off  the  map  of 
Europe,  not  to  destroy  or  mutilate  her  national  life, 
certainly  not  to  interfere  with  (to  use  the  Chancellor's 
language)  "  the  free  exercise  of  her  peaceful  endeavours." 
We  were  driven,  both  here  and  in  France,  to  take  up 
arms  in  order  to  prevent  Germany  (which  for  this 
purpose  means  Prussia)  from  establishing  a  position  of 
military  menace  and  dominance  over  her  neighbours. 
[Cheers.] 

On  several  occasions  in  the  last  ten  years  Germany 
had  given  evidence  of  her  intention  to  dictate  to 
Europe  under  threat  of  war,  and  in  violating  the 
neutrality  of  Belgium  she  proved  that  she  meant  to 
establish  her  ascendency  even  at  the  price  of  a  universal 
war  and  of  tearing  up  the  basis  of  the  European  polity 
as  established  by  treaty.  The  purpose  of  the  Allies 
in  the  war  is  to  defeat  that  attempt,  and  thereby  pave 
the  way  for  an  international  system  which  will  secure 
the  principle  of  equal  rights  for  all  civilized  States. 
[Cheers.] 

As  a  result  of  the  war  we  intend  to  establish  the 
principle  that  international  problems  must  be  handled 
by  free  negotiation  on  equal  terms  between  free  peoples, 
and  that  this  settlement  shall  no  longer  be  hampered 
and  swayed  by  the  over-mastering  dictation  of  a  govern- 
ment controlled  by  a  military  caste.  That  is  what  I 
mean  by  the  destruction  of  the  military  domination  of 
Prussia:  nothing  more  but  nothing  less.  [Cheers.] 

There  is  another  aspect  of  the  war  to  which  we 
have  from  the  beginning  attached  capital  importance. 


370    WHAT  BRITAIN  IS  FIGHTING  FOR 

The  war  began,  as  I  have  just  said,  in  the  unprovoked 
invasion  and  desolation  of  Belgium.  From  its  first 
moment,  the  future  fate  of  the  smaller  nationalities 
was  seen  to  be  in  jeopardy,  and  the  apprehensions  which 
were  then  aroused  have  been  more  than  justified  by 
what  has  happened  to  Serbia  and  Montenegro. 

We  are  in  this  struggle  the  champions  not  only  of 
treaty  rights,  but  of  the  independent  status  and  free 
development  of  the  weaker  countries.  [Cheers.]  In 
these  circumstances  cynicism  could  hardly  go  farther 
than  in  the  Chancellor's  claim  that  it  is  for  Germany 
(of  all  Powers)  to  insist  when  peace  comes  upon  "giv- 
ing the  various  races  the  chance  of  free  evolution,  along 
the  lines  of  their  mother  tongue,  and  of  national  in- 
dividuality." Apparently  this  principle  is  to  be  ap- 
plied— I  suppose  on  the  approved  Prussian  lines — 
both  to  Poland  and  to  Belgium. 

In  regard  to  the  first  of  these  two  countries,  the 
Poles  have  already  had  some  illuminating  experiences 
as  to  what  is  meant  in  Berlin  by  "free  evolution  along 
the  lines  of  the  mother  tongue."  The  attempt  to 
Germanize  Prussian  Poland  has  been  for  the  last  twenty 
years  at  once  the  strenuous  purpose  and  the  colossal 
failure  of  Prussian  domestic  policy.  Xo  one  knows 
this  better  than  the  Chancellor,  for  he  has  been  in  his 
time  one  of  its  principal  instruments,  as,  for  example, 
when  he  tried  to  colonize  Posen  with  German-speaking 
farmers.  The  use  of  the  Polish  language  in  schools — 
need  I  remind  you? — was  restricted  until  it  was  only 
allowed  for  religious  instruction,  and  finally  even  this 
concession  was  withdrawn  and  the  little  Polish  chil- 
dren had  to  learn  to  say  their  prayers  in  German. 


WHAT  BRITAIN  IS  FIGHTING  FOR     371 

The  wholesale  strike  of  the  children,  the  barbarous 
floggings  that  were  inflicted  on  them,  the  arrests 
and  imprisonment  of  their  mothers,  form  a  black 
chapter  even  in  the  annals  of  Prussian  culture.  [Loud 

cheers.] 

THE   OLD   BELGIUM   TO  BE   RESTORED 

And,  coming  to  Belgium,  it  is  with  this  record 
that  the  Chancellor  sheds  tears  over  the  fate  of  what 
he  calls  "the  long-suppressed  Flemish  race,"  and  de- 
clares it  to  be  the  future  mission  of  Germany  to  secure 
for  them  "a  sound  evolution  based  on  their  mother 
tongue."  What,  I  wonder,  do  the  Flemish  race  them- 
selves think  of  the  prospect  which  is  so  opened  out  to 
them? 

The  Chancellor  goes  on  to  say  that  after  the  war 
there  must  be  a  new  Belgium  which  is  not  to  be  a 
Franco-English  vassal,  but  between  whose  people  and 
the  Germans  who  have  burnt  their  churches  and  pillaged 
their  towns  and  laid  waste  their  fields  and  trampled  on 
their  liberties  there  is  to  be  in  the  future  the  "collabora- 
tion of  neighbours.**  A  new  development,  indeed,  of 
the  theory  of  the  rights  and  duties  of  neighbourhood ! 

My  answer  is  a  very  simple  one.  We,  the  Allies, 
desire  and  are  determined  to  see  once  again  the  okl 
Belgium.  [Loud  cheers.]  She  must  not  be  allowed  to 
suffer  permanently  from  the  wanton  and  wicked  in- 
vasion of  her  freedom,  and  that  which  has  been  broken 
down  must  be  repaired  and  restored.  [Cheers.] 


SEA  POLICY:  A 
I  will  not  waste  many  words  upon  the  Chancellor's 


372     WHAT  BRITAIN  IS  FIGHTING  FOR 

lame  and  half-hearted  attempt  to  justify  the  whole- 
sale use  of  the  submarine  for  the  destruction  of  lives 
and  property.  He  speaks  of  it  as  a  legitimate  measure 
of  self-defence  against  our  policy  of  using  our  command 
of  the  sea  to  put  economic  pressure  upon  our  enemies. 

The  Allies  are,  of  course,  in  adopting  and  pursuing 
that  policy,  exercising  a  belligerent  right  expressly 
sanctioned  by  the  two  greatest  German  Chancellors, 
Bismarck  and  Caprivi,  recognized  by  every  fighting 
Power  in  the  Old  World  and  the  New,  and  they  have 
endeavoured  and  are  endeavouring  to  mitigate  as  far 
as  possible  the  resulting  inconvenience  to  neutral 
trade.  They  are  prepared  to  justify  the  legality 
of  all  the  measures  they  have  taken  as  covered  by  the 
principles  and  spirit  of  international  law  applied  to  the 
developments  of  modern  war.  They  have  been  carried 
out  with  the  strictest  regard  to  humanity,  and  we  are 
not  aware  of  a  single  instance  of  a  neutral  life  lost  by 
reason  of  the  Allies'  blockade.  [Cheers.] 

The  German  submarine  blockade  of  Great  Britain 
was  in  fact  commenced  and  developed  long  before  our 
Order  in  Council  of  March,  1915.  Among  other  in- 
stances the  Dutch  vessel  Maria  and  the  American 
vessel  the  W.  P.  Frye,  both  carrying  food  to  these 
islands,  were  sunk  respectively  in  September,  1914, 
and  January,  1915. 

On  February  4,  1915,  the  German  Government 
declared  their  intention  of  instituting  a  general  sub- 
marine blockade  of  the  United  Kingdom  with  the 
avowed  purpose  of  cutting  off  all  our  overseas  supplies. 
It  was  not  till  March  llth  that  we  announced  those 
measures  against  German  trade  which  the  Chancellor 


WHAT  BRITAIN  IS  FIGHTING  FOR     373 

now  suggests  were  the  cause  of  the  German  submarine 
policy.  I  need  not  dwell  upon  the  flagrant  violation 
which  has  attended  its  execution  of  the  elementary 
rules  and  practices  of  international  law  and  of  the 
common  dictates  and  obligations  of  humanity.  Up  to 
this  moment  it  is  being  ruthlessly  carried  out,  as  well 
against  neutrals  as  belligerents. 

It  is  of  the  highest  importance  that  we  should  at 
once  reply  to  the  Imperial  Chancellor.  It  is  necessary 
that  we  should  lose  no  time  in  answering  these  travesties 
of  the  facts.  We,  with  our  Allies,  France,  Russia, 
Belgium,  Serbia,  Italy,  Japan,  have  been  fighting  side 
by  side  with  clean  hands  and  with  clear  consciences, 
and  side  by  side  as  we  have  the  will,  so  we  are  confident 
that  we  have  the  power,  to  vindicate  the  liberties  of 
Europe.  [Loud  and  prolonged  applause.] 


M.  PICHON'S  REPLY 


M.  Stephen  Pichon,  the  former  French  Minister 
for  Foreign  Affairs,  replying  to  the  toast,  said  that  if 
the  journey  of  the  French  visitors  had  been  under- 
taken for  no  other  purpose  than  to  hear  the  mag- 
nificent speech  they  had  just  heard  it  would  have  been 
well  worth  making.  It  was  a  great  honour  for  them 
to  have  been  able  to  hear  those  memorable  words. 
They  considered  this  honour  as  crowning  the  work 
which  they  had  undertaken  together  with  their  col- 
leagues of  the  British  Parliament.  From  the  very 
outset  the  British  and  French  Governments  had  seen 
eye  to  eye  and  had  established  community  of  aim  and 
action;  so  it  would  be  until  the  victorious  end.  [Loud 
cheers.] 


XVIII 

WHY  BRITAIN  IS  IN  THE  WAR  AND 

WHAT  SHE  HOPES  FROM 

THE  FUTURE 

By  The  Rt.  Hon.  VISCOUNT  GREY  OP  FALLODON 

Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  A/ain 


XVIII 
WHY  BRITAIN  IS  IN  THE  WAR 

AND 

WHAT  SHE  HOPES  FROM  THE  FUTURE 

A  speech  addressed  to  the  Representatives  of  the  Foreign 
Press  in  London,  on  the  %3d  October,  1916. 

C^1  me  say  to  you  that,  in  a  time  of  war  such  as 
this,  we  all  value  the  presence  amongst  us  of  a 
body  of  men  belonging  to  other  countries,  both 
Allied  and  neutral,  who  will  faithfully  represent  what 
they  find  to  be  our  feeling;  who  will  send  out  to  the 
world  a  faithful  picture  of  this  country  in  the  great 
struggle  through  which  it  is  passing,  who  will  speak  the 
truth  and  who,  if  they  can  succeed  not  only  in  speaking 
the  truth,  which  is  comparatively  easy,  but  in  getting 
the  truth  believed  through  the  world  at  large,  will  have 
rendered  the  greatest  possible  service  we  can  ask  of 
them. 

The  President  said  I  was  going  to  make  an  historic 
speech.  I  doubt  whether  any  historic  speech  can  be 
made  while  the  war  is  still  in  progress.  After  the  war, 
very  likely,  but  while  the  war  is  in  progress  the  real 
historic  work  is  being  done  in  the  offices  of  the  General 
Staffs  of  the  Allied  countries  and  on  the  battlefield, 
where  our  soldiers  are  fighting.  Words  can  do  but 
little.  The  work  done  by  the  General  Staffs  at  head- 

377 


378        WHY  BRITAIN  IS  IN  THE  WAR 

quarters,  by  the  armies  in  the  field,  and  the  navies  on  the 
sea — that  is  the  real  work  which  is  making  history.  We 
have  had,  since  the  autumn  began,  two  or  three  notable 
speeches — first  of  all,  a  great  speech  by  M.  Briand  in 
the  French  Chamber;  then,  next  in  time,  an  interview 
given  by  Mr.  Lloyd  George  to  a  Press  correspondent  in 
this  country;  then  a  speech  by  Mr.  Asquith  in  the  House 
of  Commons;  and  lately  we  have  had  a  note  struck  just 
as  firmly  in  Petrograd  by  an  official  communique,  under 
the  auspices  of  the  Minister  of  the  Interior. 

Those  speeches  have  given  to  the  world  the  note  and 
the  tone  and  the  feeling  of  the  Allies  at  this  moment. 
I  endorse  all  that  they  have  said,  but  this  afternoon  for 
a  few  moments  I  would  like  to  talk,  not  about  the  con- 
ditions of  peace,  which  can  only  be  stated  and  formu- 
lated by  the  Allies  all  together  and  not  by  any  one  of 
them  separately,  but  about  the  general  object  which  the 
Allies  must  secure  in  this  war. 

1870   OVER  AGAIN 

To  do  that  I  would  ask  you  to  recall  that  we  must 
never  forget  how  the  war  came  about.  If  we  are  to 
approach  the  subject  in  a  proper  spirit  it  can  only  be 
by  recalling,  and  never  for  one  moment  forgetting, 
what  was  the  real  cause  of  the  war.  Some  people 
say  "You  need  not  go  back  on  the  old  ground  now; 
everybody  knows  it!"  You  cannot  go  back  on  it  too 
often.  It  affects  the  conditions  of  peace. 

Germany  talks  of  peace.  Her  statesmen  talk  of 
peace  to-day,  but  what  sort  of  peace  do  they  talk  of? 
Oh,  they  say,  Germany  must  have  guarantees  against 
being  attacked  again.  If  this  war  had  been  forced 


WHY  BRITAIN  IS  IN  THE  WAR        379 

upon  Germany  that  would  be  a  logical  statement.  It 
is  precisely  because  it  was  not  forced  upon  Germany, 
but  forced  by  Germany  upon  Europe,  that  it  is  the 
Allies  who  must  have  guarantees  for  future  peace. 

In  July,  1914,  no  one  thought  of  attacking  Germany. 
It  is  said  that  Russia  was  the  first  to  mobilize.  That, 
I  understand,  is  what  is  represented  in  Germany  as  a 
justification  for  the  statement  that  the  war  was  not  an 
aggressive  war  on  Germany's  part,  but  was  forced 
upon  her.  Russia  never  made  the  mobilization  of 
which  Germany  complained  until  after  Germany  had 
refused  a  conference,  and  she  never  made  it  until 
after  a  report  had  appeared  in  Germany  that  Germany 
had  ordered  mobilization  and  that  report  had  been 
telegraphed  to  Petrograd. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  it  was  the  story  of  1870  over 
again — preparation  for  war,  not  only  the  preparation  of 
material,  but  the  preparatory  stages  for  war  all  ad- 
vanced in  Berlin  to  a  point  beyond  that  of  any  other 
country,  and  then,  when  the  chosen  moment  came, 
a  manoeuvre  was  made  to  provoke  some  other  country 
to  take  a  defensive  step,  and  when  that  defensive  step 
was  taken,  then  to  receive  it  with  an  ultimatum  which 
made  war  inevitable. 

The  same  thing  with  the  invasion  of  Belgium. 
Strategic  railways  had  been  made  in  Germany,  and 
the  whole  plan  of  campaign  of  the  German  staff  was 
to  attack  through  Belgium,  and  now  it  is  represented 
that  they  had  to  attack  through  Belgium  because 
other  people  had  planned  to  attack  through  Belgium. 
I  would  like  nothing  better  than  to  see  those  state- 
ments— that  the  Russian  mobilization  was  an  aggres- 


380        WHY  BRITAIN  IS  IN  THE  WAR 

sive  and  not  defensive  measure,  and  that  any  other 
Power  than  Germany  had  trafficked  in  the  neutrality 
of  Belgium  or  planned  to  attack  through  Belgium — 
I  would  like  to  see  those  statements  investigated  before 
any  independent  and  impartial  tribunal. 


GERMANY'S  WILL  TO  WAR 


German  organization  is  very  successful  in  some  things, 
but  in  nothing  more  successful  than  in  preventing  the 
truth  from  reaching  their  own  people,  and  succeeding 
in  presenting  to  them  a  point  of  view  which  is  not  that 
of  the  truth — the  statement  that  the  war  was  forced 
upon  Germany.  When  England  proposed  the  con- 
ference Russia,  France,  and  Italy  accepted  the  con- 
ference; when  four  Powers  offer  a  conference  and  one 
Power  refuses  it,  is  it  the  Powers  who  are  offering  the 
conference  which  are  forcing  war,  or  the  Power  which 
refuses  it?  The  Emperor  of  Russia  offered  The  Hague 
Tribunal.  One  Sovereign  offers  The  Hague  Tribunal 
and  another  ignores  it.  Is  it  the  Sovereign  who  offers 
reference  to  The  Hague  who  is  forcing  war  on  the 
Sovereign  who  ignores  the  offer? 

On  the  very  eve  of  war  France  gave  her  pledge  to 
respect  the  neutrality  of  Belgium  if  Germany  would 
not  violate  it.  We  asked  for  such  a  pledge.  Was  it 
the  Power  which  asked  for  the  pledge  and  the  Power 
which  gave  the  pledge  which  were  responsible  for  the 
violation  of  the  neutrality  of  Belgium,  or  the  Power 
which  refused  to  give  the  pledge?  Belgium  knows, 
and  every  Frenchman  and  Englishman  knows,  that 
never  at  any  time  was  there  a  suggestion  that  French 
or  English  soldiers  should  enter  Belgium  unless  it 


WHY  BRITAIN  IS  IN  THE  WAR        381 

were  to  defend  Belgium  from  a  violation  of  her  neu- 
trality, which  had  first  been  undertaken  by  Germany. 

Why  was  it  that  all  the  efforts  to  avoid  the  war  in 
July,  1914,  failed?  Well,  because  you  cannot  have 
peace  without  good  will,  and  because  in  Berlin  there 
was  the  will  to  war  and  not  the  will  to  peace. 

Now  just  lately,  I  think  to  an  American,  the  Crown 
Prince  has  deplored  the  loss  of  life  caused  by  this  war. 
Yet  it  was  because  we  knew  what  the  suffering  of  war 
must  be,  because  we  knew  how  terrible  a  thing  war 
let  loose  in  Europe  would  be,  that  we  tried  to  avoid  it  in 
1914.  Then  was  the  time  to  have  been  penetrated  with 
a  sense  of  all  that  war  would  mean.  After  we  have 
had  this  terrible  experience,  our  allies  and  ourselves 
are  determined  that  the  war  shall  not  end  till  we  can 
be  sure,  at  any  rate,  that  the  generations  which  come 
after  us  and  our  nations  in  future  are  not  to  be  subjected 
to  such  a  terrible  trial  again. 

THE   PLAN   THAT   FAILED 

What  was  the  German  plan?  I  saw  some  statement 
in  the  Press  the  other  day  that  a  German  officer  had 
recognized  that  Germany  had  failed  this  time,  but  that 
in  ten  years  she  was  going  to  succeed.  What  was  the 
plan;  what  was  the  failure?  It  was  to  be  a  short, 
successful  war.  There  was  a  time-table — so  long  to 
get  to  Paris;  so  long  to  defeat  France;  so  long  after- 
ward to  defeat  Russia — and  as  to  England,  the  plan 
was  that  England  should  be  kept  out  of  the  war,  but 
if  England  did  enter  the  war  it  was  not  thought  that 
the  expeditionary  force  we  had  available  would  be 
enough  to  upset  the  enemy's  plans.  People  who  are 


382        WHY  BRITAIN  IS  IN  THE  WAR 

militarists,  whose  ideas  and  thoughts  run  solely  on 
military  considerations,  wholly  material,  forget  to  esti- 
mate and  cannot  estimate  the  spirit  and  the  soul 
which  exist  in  nations  when  they  are  attacked  and  are 
fighting  for  their  lives.  The  plan  was  that  France 
and  Russia  were  to  be  defeated,  England  was  to  be 
isolated — and  disgraced. 

We  must  never  forget,  as  we  go  through  this  war, 
that  an  offer  was  made  to  us  to  keep  out  of  the  war. 
We  were  asked  by  the  German  Government  to  engage 
to  remain  neutral  on  certain  conditions.  We  were 
asked  to  condone  the  violation  of  the  neutrality  of 
Belgium — because  that  was  what  the  offer  came  to— 
though  the  German  Government  were  pledged  by  treaty 
to  uphold  it.  And  we  were  asked  to  give  Germany 
a  free  hand  to  take  whatever  she  liked  of  the  French 
colonies.  That  is  why  I  say  the  plan  was  not  only  to 
isolate  us,  but  to  discredit  us.  I  would  ask  any  neutral 
to  put  it  to  himself — what  would  be  the  future  of  this 
country  if  the  British  Government  had  for  a  moment 
accepted  such  an  offer?  We  might  have  had  an  army 
and  a  navy,  but  there  would  have  been  no  morale— 
no  spirit  in  the  nation.  We  should  have  had  the  con- 
tempt of  the  whole  world.  Tactics  so  gross  as  that 
did  not  succeed,  and  I  need  not  recall  what  the  reply 
of  the  British  Government  was,  nor  what  the  spirit  of 
the  nation  was  at  the  opening  of  the  war. 

We  should  not  think  merely  of  what  Germany  says 
to-day:  it  is  worth  looking  back  to  the  expectations  of 
her  Government  and  people  when  the  war  started. 
Then  we  saw  something  of  their  real  mind.  There  was 
a  certain  Professor  Ostwald  in  Germany,  who  un- 


WHY  BRITAIN  IS  IN  THE  WAR        383 

burdened  himself,  I  think  to  an  American,  in  August, 
1914.  He  called  himself  a  pacifist,  and  this  is  what  he 
described  as  German  aims.  Germany  was  to  dictate 
peace  to  the  rest  of  Europe,  and  the  principle  of  the 
absolute  sovereignty  of  individual  nations  must  be 
given  up. 

Don't  let  us  forget  that  that  was  the  spirit  in  which 
Germany  began  this  war.  What  is  the  spirit  in  which 
the  war  is  being  carried  on  by  the  Allies  and  ourselves 
to-day?  I  take  it  from  the  words  of  the  Prime  Minister 
the  other  day:  "We  shall  fight  until  we  have  estab- 
lished supremacy  of  right  over  force,  free  development 
under  equal  conditions,  and  each  in  accordance  with 
its  own  genius,  of  all  States,  great  and  small,  which 
build  up  the  family  of  civilized  mankind." 

ALLIED    UNITY    ESSENTIAL 

Into  this  struggle  we  have  put,  rightly  and  neces- 
sarily, all  our  resources,  all  our  wealth,  all  our  material, 
and  all  our  labour;  and  now,  when  we  have  had  time 
to  equip  and  train  a  large  army,  we  are  putting  into 
it  all  the  best  life's  blood  of  the  nation  to  shed  it  on  the 
Continent,  side  by  side  with  our  allies,  in  emulation 
of  them,  stimulated  by  the  courage  and  self-sacrifice 
which  they  themselves  are  showing  in  defence  of  their 
own  country.  We  are  doing  it  because  we  know  that 
their  cause  and  ours  is  one;  that  to  the  end  and  for  the 
future  we  fall  or  stand  together;  that  the  separation  of 
one  from  the  other  is  the  destruction  of  the  one  sep- 
arated, and  not  its  safety,  and  that  for  all  of  us  unity 
is  essential,  not  merely  to  victory,  but  to  our  future 
life  and  success.  Germany  has  been  trying  through- 


384        WHY  BRITAIN  IS  IN  THE  WAR 

out  the  war  to  separate  one  from  the  other — now  one, 
now  another.  Not  a  week  passes  that  does  not  confirm 
our  resolve  to  go  through  with  our  allies  to  the  end, 
and  theirs  to  go  through  with  each  other.  I  trust  that 
the  memory  of  the  suffering  we  have  undergone  to- 
gether, the  memory  of  the  joint  courage  which  is 
carrying  us  through  all  that  we  have  been  through  side 
by  side,  will  be  a  perpetual  bond  of  alliance  and  sym- 
pathy between  our  Government  and  peoples. 

WHAT   NEUTRALS   CAN   DO 

Looking  to  the  future  after  the  war,  what  is  it  that 
neutrals  can  do?  The  other  day  a  correspondent 
sounded  me  upon  the  subject  of  what  neutrals  can  do. 
I  wrote  in  reply:  "I  believe  that  the  best  work  that 
neutrals  can  do  for  the  moment  is  to  work  up  an 
opinion  for  such  an  agreement  between  nations  as  will 
prevent  a  war  like  this  from  happening  again.  If 
nations  had  been  united  in  such  an  agreement,  and 
prompt  and  resolute  to  insist  in  July,  1914,  that  the 
dispute  must  be  referred  to  a  conference  or  to  The 
Hague,  and  that  the  Belgian  Treaty  must  be  observed, 
there  would  have  been  no  war."  I  would  ask  neutrals 
to  observe  this — that  belligerent  countries  engaged  in 
war,  fighting  as  we  are  to-day  in  a  struggle  for  life 
and  death,  fighting,  it  is  true,  for  victory,  with  increas- 
ing prospects  of  seeing  that  victory  approaching  nearer, 
but  still  knowing  that  if  we  stop  short  of  victory  we 
stop  short  of  everything — nations  engaged  in  such  a 
struggle  cannot  be  expected  to  have  much  time  to  spend 
upon  developing  ideas  of  what  can  be  done  after  victory 
is  secured.  But  neutrals  can  do  it,  and  it  is  interest- 


WHY  BRITAIN  IS  IN  THE  WAR        385 

ing  to  observe  the  attitude,  not  only  of  President  Wil- 
son, but  of  Mr.  Hughes,  the  Republican  candidate  for 
the  Presidency. 

In  the  United  States  a  league  has  already  sprung  up, 
supported  by  various  distinguished  people,  with  the 
object,  not  of  interfering  with  belligerents  in  this  war, 
but  of  getting  ready  for  some  international  association, 
after  this  war  is  over,  which  shall  do  its  part  in  making 
peace  secure  in  future.  I  would  like  to  say  that  if  we 
seem  to  have  little  time  to  give  to  such  ideas  ourselves 
while  we  are  engaged  in  this  struggle,  such  a  work  in 
neutral  countries  is  one  to  which  we  should  all  look 
with  favour  and  with  hope.  Only  bear  this  in  mind, 
if  the  nations  in  the  world  after  the  war  are  to  do  some- 
thing more  effective  than  they  have  been  able  to  do 
before,  to  bind  themselves  together  for  the  common 
object  of  peace,  they  must  be  prepared  not  to  under- 
take more  than  they  are  prepared  to  uphold  by  force, 
and  to  see  when  the  time  of  crisis  comes  that  it  is  up- 
held by  force.  In  other  words,  we  say  to  neutrals 
who  are  occupying  themselves  with  this  question  that 
we  are  in  favour  of  it.  But  we  shall  have  to  ask  when 
the  time  comes  for  them  to  make  any  demand  on  us 
for  such  a  thing:  "Will  you  play  up  when  the  time 
comes?"  It  is  not  merely  a  sign  manual  of  Sovereigns 
or  Presidents  that  is  required  to  make  a  thing  like 
that  worth  while;  it  must  also  have  behind  it  Parlia- 
ments and  national  sentiment. 

The  object  of  this  league  is  to  insist  upon  treaties 
being  kept  and  some  other  settlement  being  tried  before 
resort  to  war.  In  July,  1914,  there  was  no  such  league 
in  existence.  Supposing  a  generation  hence  such  a 


386        WHY  BRITAIN  IS  IN  THE  WAR 

condition  of  things  as  in  July,  1914,  recurs  and  there 
is  such  a  league  in  existence,  it  may,  and  it  ought  to, 
keep  the  peace.  Everything  will  depend  upon  whether 
the  national  sentiment  behind  it  is  so  penetrated  by 
the  lessons  of  this  war  as  to  feel  that  in  the  future  eacli 
nation,  although  not  immediately  concerned  in  this  dis- 
pute, is  yet  interested,  and  vitally  interested,  in  doing 
something,  even  if  it  be  by  force,  to  keep  the  peace. 

GERMANY  THE  GREAT  ANARCHIST 

But  there  must  be  more  than  that.  You  must  have 
some  agreement  after  this  war  is  over  as  to  the  methods 
under  which  war  is  to  be  conducted.  Germany  com- 
plains of  our  methods  in  this  war.  She  complains  of 
our  blockade.  From  the  very  beginning  Germany 
did  her  utmost  to  prevent  food  reaching  this  country. 
In  the  early  stages  of  the  war  she  sank  two  neutral 
ships  with  food  for  this  country.  It  does  not  lie  with 
her  to  complain  of  our  blockade.  But  what  about 
other  methods  which  have  been  introduced — the  sow- 
ing of  mines  indiscriminately  upon  the  high  seas,  a 
danger  equally  to  neutrals  and  to  belligerents;  the 
pouring  of  shells  into  defenceless  coast  towns? — be- 
cause you  must  remember  that  what  is  required,  ac- 
cording to  the  German  official  communiques,  to  convert 
an  Allied  town  on  the  coast  into  a  fortress  is  not  the 
position  of  guns  in  it  or  the  presence  of  troops,  but 
merely  the  fact  that  it  has  been  fired  upon  by  a  German 
cruiser.  Then  there  is  the  use  of  poisonous  gas  in  war, 
which  nobody  would  have  believed  possible  if  the 
Germans  had  not  begun  it,  which  nobody  thought  of 
using  till  the  Germans  began  it.  In  the  Gallipoli 


WHY  BRITAIN  IS  IN  THE  WAR        387 

Peninsula  neither  we  nor  the  French  used  gas,  because 
we  would  not  be  the  first  to  introduce  it  anywhere. 
That  has  been  brought  into  the  war.  Then  there  is  the 
sinking  of  merchant  vessels,  with  the  destruction 
of  the  passengers  and  crews;  the  acts  committed  in 
Belgium  and  other  Allied  territory  in  the  occupation  of 
Germany,  some  of  which  have  been  the  subject  of 
investigation  and  report,  in  breach  of  all  the  laws  and 
conventions  of  war  and  all  the  most  elementary  dictates 
of  humanity. 

And  one  thing  more,  of  which  we  hear  little,  very 
little,  and  do  not  know  the  full  story.  Since  the  out- 
break of  war,  since  Turkey  entered  the  war,  she  has 
been  the  vassal  of  Germany.  Enough  has  leaked 
through  to  make  it  clear  that  there  has  gone  on,  and  is 
going  on,  in  Turkey  on  a  scale  unprecedented,  and  with 
horrors  unequalled  before,  an  attempt  to  exterminate 
the  Christian  population;  horrors  which  Germany 
could  have  prevented,  and  which  could  only  have 
gone  on  with  her  toleration.  Perhaps  some  day  some 
neutral  nation  who  knows  the  full  story  will  make  it 
known  to  the  world.  All  these  things  have  been  hap- 
pening during  this  war,  and  what  a  prospect  it  opens 
for  the  future!  Are  all  the  resources  of  science  to 
continue  to  be  devoted  after  this  war  to  invent  means 
of  destroying  the  human  race,  with  no  restriction  upon 
their  use?  It  is  a  prospect  which  threatens  civiliza- 
tion and  the  existence  of  the  race  itself. 

Germany,  in  letting  loose  these  things,  has  been  the 
great  anarchist  who  has  let  loose  on  the  world  a  greater 
and  more  terrible  anarchy  than  any  individual  anarchist 
ever  dreamed  of.  In  future,  war,  unless  there  is  some 


388        WHY  BRITAIN  IS  IN  THE  WAR 

means  of  restraining  it,  will  by  the  development  of 
science  be  made  even  more  terrible  and  horrible  than 
this  war  has  been,  because  Germany  has  thrown  down 
all  the  barriers  which  civilization  previously  built  up 
so  as  to  keep  the  horrors  of  war  within  bounds.  Neu- 
tral nations  have  an  interest  in  seeing  that  something  is 
done  to  ensure  that  there  shall  be  rules  which  shall  be 
kept  in  future  wars — rules  which  shall  be  so  laid  down 
and  supported  that  it  will  be  clear  that  any  nation  which 
departs  from  them  will  be  regarded  by  the  whole  world 
as  the  enemy  of  the  human  race,  and  have  the  whole 
world  against  it. 

The  indiscriminate  use  of  high  explosives  to  destroy 
great  cities,  to  destroy  combatants  and  non-combatants 
alike,  all  those  things  which  have  been  done  in  this 
war,  the  introduction  of  poisonous  gas,  the  introduction 
perhaps  of  disease!  It  will  need  all  the  efforts  not  only 
of  belligerents  but  of  neutrals,  after  this  war  is  over, 
to  see  that  the  barriers  necessary  to  secure  that  the 
inventions  of  science  are  used  in  the  future,  in  the  air, 
on  the  land,  in  the  water  and  under  the  water,  not  for 
the  destruction  of  mankind,  but  for  its  welfare,  to  see 
that  all  nations  shall  recognize  some  responsibility  to 
prevent  outbreaks  of  war,  and  that,  if  there  be  war,  it 
shall  be  conducted  by  rules  at  least  as  humane  as  those 
which  our  ancestors  observed,  and  which  Germany 
to-day  has  disregarded  and  thrown  to  the  winds.  This 
is  a  matter  in  which  the  whole  human  race  is  interested. 

YOUTH'S  SACRIFICE 

Day  by  day  it  is  brought  home  to  us  that  here  and 
in  the  countries  of  the  Allies  there  are  hundreds  of 


WHY  BRITAIN  IS  IN  THE  WAR        389 

thousands  of  homes  to  which,  indeed,  victory  may 
bring  a  sense  of  pride  and  satisfaction,  but  to  which  it 
can  never  bring  just  the  same  gladness  and  joy  in  life 
that  was  in  these  homes  before  the  war.  Thousands  of 
young  men — one  young  life  after  another — go  to  the 
front,  mount  in  spirit  heights  of  nobleness  and  courage, 
to  which  in  ordinary  times  even  a  long  life  gives  no 
opportunity  of  attaining.  And  on  those  heights  many 
of  them  pass  away,  leaving  often  some  record  of  the 
spirit  with  which  they  have  met  their  death,  which 
makes  us  doubly  proud  of  them,  although  it  adds  to 
the  poignancy  of  grief  and  sense  of  sorrow  and  loss. 
They  are  succeeded  by  others,  and  yet  by  others,  and 
will  be  as  long  as  the  effort  is  required — a  long  procession 
from  all  our  countries  of  men  who  die  but  who  do  not 
fail,  because  their  life  and  the  manner  of  their  death 
is  a  glorious  success. 

This  generation  in  its  prime  is  giving  its  life,  but  it  is 
giving  it  that  the  older  generation  now  among  us  may 
live  out  its  years  after  this  war  in  peace,  freedom, 
and  honour,  and  that  the  generation  which  is  now  chil- 
dren, and  the  generations  who  are  yet  to  come,  may 
enjoy  life  and  develop  the  national  life,  free  from  the 
stifling  oppression  of  the  domination  of  Prussian  mili- 
tarism. For  years  before  this  war  we  were  living  under 
the  deepening  shadow  of  Prussian  militarism  extending 
itself  first  over  the  whole  of  Germany,  and  then  ex- 
tending itself  over  the  whole  Continent.  There  must 
be  no  end  to  this  war,  no  peace  except  a  peace  which 
is  going  to  ensure  that  the  nations  of  Europe  live  in  the 
future  free  from  that  shadow  in  the  open  air  and  in  the 
light  of  freedom.  For  that  we  are  contending.  We 


390        WHY  BRITAIN  IS  IN  THE  WAR 

know  that  if  mankind  lias  any  birthright,  as  we  be- 
lieve it  has  a  birthright,  to  peace  and  to  liberty,  then 
our  cause  is  just  and  right,  because  it  is  for  those  we  are 
fighting. 

When  they  ask  us:  "How  long  is  the  struggle  to  be 
continued?"  we  can  but  reply  that  it  must  be  con- 
tinued till  these  things  are  secured,  and  if  it  be  hard 
that  the  present  generation  in  its  prime  should  be 
called  on  to  sacrifice  all,  it  is  for  the  sake  of  the  future 
of  the  nation  and  the  generations  that  come  after. 
It  is  our  determination,  which  the  progress  of  the  war 
but  deepens,  in  common  with  our  allies,  to  continue 
the  war  until  we  have  made  it  certain  that  the  Allies 
in  common  shall  have  achieved  the  success  which 
must  and  ought  to  be  theirs,  until  they  have  secured 
the  future  peace  of  the  whole  Continent  of  Europe, 
until  they  have  made  it  clear  that  all  the  sacrifices  we 
have  made  shall  not  have  been  in  vain. 


XIX 
THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 


XIX 
THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 

"What  year  in  our  history  has  done  more  to  justify 
our  faith  in  the  manhood  and  the  womanhood  of  our  people  ? 
It  has  brought  us  the  imperishable  story  of  the  last  hours 
of  Edith  Cavell  facing  a  worse  ordeal  than  the  battlefield 
—the  moments  creeping  on  slowly  and  remorselessly  and 
death  already  swallowed  up  in  victory.  She  has  taught 
the  bravest  man  among  us  a  supreme  lesson  of  courage'9 

— The  Prime  Minister,  Tuesday,  November  %d. 

i.  EDITH  CAVELL'S  LIFE 

EDITH  CAVELL  was  forty-three  years  old 
when  she  died.  She  was  born  in  1872  at  the 
village  of  Swardeston,  in  Norfolk,  of  which  her 
father  was  rector;  and  she  grew  up  there  in  the  country 
with  her  parents.  During  her  childhood,  Florence 
Nightingale's  life-work  was  beginning  to  bear  fruit  in  a 
great  development  of  trained  nursing  in  England. 
The  girls  of  Edith  Cavell's  generation  found  a  won- 
derful field  of  service  opening  before  them,  and  Edith 
Cavell  herself  was  one  of  those  that  entered  upon  it. 
There  is  no  need  to  tell  how  unselfish  and  unwearying 
she  was  in  her  vocation.  For  any  one  acquainted 
with  the  tradition  and  practise  of  nursing  in  England, 
it  will  be  enough  to  know  that  she  did  honour  to  her 


394       THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 

profession.  But  we  ought  to  add  that  her  skill  was  on  a 
level  with  her  devotion;  for  it  was  this  professional 
skill  that  singled  her  out  for  the  important  post  which  she 
occupied  during  the  last  few  years  of  her  life,  and  which 
occasioned  the  circumstances  of  her  heroic  death. 

Miss  Cavell  began  her  training  at  the  London  Hos- 
pital when  she  was  twenty-one.  She  qualified  in  1896, 
and  distinguished  herself  by  ten  years  of  responsible 
work  in  England,  until  she  was  called  to  a  still  more 
arduous  mission  abroad.  Thanks  to  Florence  Night- 
ingale's inspiration,  English  nursing  had  outstripped 
the  rest  of  the  world  in  its  development,  and  other 
countries  were  applying  for  English  nurses  to  instruct 
them  in  the  new  English  methods.  One  of  these 
countries  was  Belgium.  A  Belgian  School  of  Certifi- 
cated Nurses  was  in  process  of  foundation  at  Brussels, 
and  in  1906  Miss  Cavell  was  asked,  and  consented,  to 
be  its  first  directress.  In  addition  to  her  professional 
experience  and  enthusiasm,  she  was  especially  qualified 
for  the  task  by  the  fact  that  she  had  spent  several  years 
of  her  girlhood  in  Brussels  at  school,  and  so  was  already 
familiar  with  Belgian  life.  The  patrons  of  the  new 
Nursing  Institute  found  reason  to  congratulate  them- 
selves on  their  choice,  and  looked  forward  to  the  great 
development  of  the  nursing  profession  in  Belgium  which 
Miss  Cavell,  with  half  her  life  before  her,  would  achieve. 

But  she  was  not  to  achieve  it,  for  in  the  eighth  year 
of  her  pioneer  work  came  the  war. 

II.    THE  ARREST 

She  was  spending  a  holiday  with  her  mother  in  Eng- 
land at  the  moment  war  broke  out,  and  she  had  no 


THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL       395 

difficulty  in  deciding  where  her  duty  lay.  Germany 
had  revealed  her  criminal  designs  against  Belgium. 
There  would  be  work  in  Brussels  for  her  to  do,  and  she 
returned  immediately  to  do  it.  She  arrived  in  time  to 
share  the  terrible  experience  of  the  German  entry  into 
the  Belgian  capital,  and  then  absorbed  herself  in  the 
duties  that  crowded  upon  her. 

The  Training  Institute,  of  course,  transformed  it- 
self under  Miss  Cavell's  direction  into  a  hospital  for 
sick  and  wounded  soldiers.  Belgians,  Frenchmen,  and 
Englishmen,  as  well  as  the  German  invaders,  all  came 
under  her  impartial  care;  and  she  nursed  friend  and 
foe  with  the  single-minded  devotion  and  humanity 
that  is  the  creed  of  her  calling.  But  she  did  not  limit 
her  services  to  this.  She  took  counsel  with  her  Bel- 
gian friends,  and  succeeded,  with  their  assistance,  in 
conveying  many  of  her  French,  British,  and  Belgian 
patients,  as  they  recovered,  to  the  farther  side  of  the 
Dutch  frontier,  that  they  might  fight  again  for  the 
common  cause  instead  of  undergoing  whatever  fate  the 
German  authorities  allotted  to  convalescent  prisoners 
of  war.  She  also  helped  in  the  escape  of  Belgian 
civilians  of  military  age,  who  had  been  overtaken, 
before  they  could  join  the  colours,  by  the  rapidity  of 
the  German  advance,  and  were  being  held  at  home  in 
virtual  captivity  by  every  means  in  the  German  Gov- 
ernment's power. 

So  she  worked  for  a  year — a  year  of  military  nursing, 
and  nine  months  of  friendship  in  need  to  her  friends 
and  fellow-countrymen — until  the  German  administra- 
tion in  Belgium  discovered  her  share  in  the  escapes. 
They  acted  immediately  upon  the  discovery,  and  one 


396       THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 

evening  Edith  Cavell  was  arrested  at  her  hospital  by 
soldiers  and  carried  away  to  the  military  prison  of 
St.  Gilles.  This  was  on  August  5,  1915. 

III.    THE  AMERICAN  LEGATION  INTERVENES 

The  German  authorities  kept  what  they  had  done  to 
themselves.  Edith  Cavell  had  been  three  weeks  in 
prison  before  her  family  in  England  heard  of  her  arrest, 
and  then  they  only  heard  of  it  privately  from  a  traveller 
who  happened  to  have  come  from  Belgium  since  the 
event.  They  communicated  the  news  to  the  Foreign 
Office,  and  action  was  immediately  taken  by  Sir  Edward 
Grey.  When  the  Germans  occupied  Brussels,  the 
American  Minister  there  took  charge  of  British  inter- 
ests in  the  occupied  territory.  The  chief  of  these 
interests  was,  of  course,  the  protection  of  any  British 
subjects  that  remained  in  this  territory  from  wrongful 
treatment  at  the  invaders'  hands.  And  Sir  Edward 
Grey  accordingly  sent  a  note  on  August  26th  to  Mr. 
Page,  the  United  States'  Ambassador  in  London,  re- 
questing him  to  inquire  of  the  United  States'  Minister 
at  Brussels,  by  telegraph,  whether  the  report  of  Miss 
Cavell's  arrest  were  correct,  and,  if  it  were,  what  reason 
had  been  alleged  in  explanation. 

We  may  take  this  opportunity  to  record,  at  the  out- 
set, the  magnificent  loyalty  with  which  the  American 
Legation  at  Brussels,  and  all  those  connected  with  it, 
exerted  themselves  from  first  to  last  in  their  voluntarily 
accepted  trust  on  Edith  Cavell's  behalf.  We  shall  re- 
peatedly have  occasion,  in  the  course  of  this  narrative, 
to  admire  the  forethought  and  the  energy,  the  tact 
and  the  feeling  of  these  noble  public  servants  of  the 


THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL       397 

United  States.  And  in  doing  this  service  they  were 
serving  not  their  country  alone,  nor  yet  the  kindred 
nation  which  had  entrusted  them  with  the  protection 
of  its  citizens  under  a  hostile  and  violent-handed 
military  administration;  they  were  serving  humanity, 
and  standing  for  the  principles  of  civilization. 

Sir  Edward  Grey  would  request  Mr.  Page  to  express  to  Mr. 
Whitlock  and  the  staff  of  the  United  States'  Legation  at  Brussels 
the  grateful  thanks  of  His  Majesty's  Government  for  their  untiring 
efforts  on  Miss  CavelPs  behalf.  He  is  fully  satisfied  that  no  stone 
was  left  unturned  to  secure  for  Miss  Cavell  a  fair  trial,  and,  when 
sentence  had  been  pronounced,  a  mitigation  thereof. 

These  were  the  words  in  which  the  representative 
of  Great  Britain  expressed  his  gratitude  to  the  American 
diplomatists  at  Brussels  after  the  whole  tragedy  was 
over,  and  they  will  be  endorsed  by  every  civilized  man 
and  woman  in  the  world. 

This  magnificent  spirit  of  the  American  officials 
became  apparent  as  soon  as  the  call  was  made.  On 
receiving  Sir  Edward  Grey's  note,  Mr.  Page  acted  as 
promptly  as  Sir  Edward  himself.  He  telegraphed  to 
his  colleague  at  Brussels,  Mr.  Whitlock,  next  morning; 
and  four  days  later,  on  August  31st,  Mr.  Whitlock  ad- 
dressed an  inquiry  on  the  subject  to  Baron  von  der 
Lancken,  the  chief  of  the  Political  Department  (Poli- 
tische  Abteilung)  of  the  German  Military  Government 
in  the  conquered  territory.  Here  is  Mr.  Whitlock's 
note* : 

*A11  documents  here  quoted  are  taken  word  for  word  from  the  British  White 
Paper,  Miscellaneous,  No.  17  (1915),  entitled,  "Correspondence  with  the 
United  States  Ambassador  Respecting  the  Execution  of  Miss  Cavell  at  Brus- 
sels." 


398       THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 

Brussels,  August  31,  1915. 
YOUR    EXCELLENCY, 

My  Legation  has  just  been  informed  that  Miss  Edith  Cavell,  a 
British  subject  residing  in  the  Rue  de  la  Culture,  Brussels,  is 
said  to  have  been  arrested. 

I  should  be  greatly  obliged  if  your  Excellency  would  be  good 
enough  to  let  me  know  whether  this  report  is  true,  and,  if  so, 
the  reasons  for  her  arrest.  I  should  also  be  grateful  in  that  case 
if  your  Excellency  would  furnish  this  Legation  with  the  necessary 
authorization  from  the  German  judicial  authorities,  so  that  M. 
de  Leval  may  consult  with  Miss  Cavell,  and  eventually  entrust 
some  one  with  her  defence. 

I  avail,  etc., 

BRAND  WHITLOCK. 

This  was  written  on  August  31st,  and  after  waiting 
ten  days  without  being  vouchsafed  an  answer,  Mr. 
Whitlock  followed  it  up  in  another  note  on  September 
10th: 

The  United  States'  Minister  presents  his  compliments  to  Baron 
von  der  Lancken  and  has  the  honour  to  draw  his  Excellency's 
attention  to  his  letter  of  the  31st  August,  respecting  the  arrest  of 
Miss  Cavell,  to  which  no  reply  has  yet  been  received. 

As  the  Minister  has  been  requested  by  telegraph  to  take  charge 
of  Miss  CavelTs  defence  without  delay,  he  would  be  greatly 
obliged  if  Baron  von  der  Lancken  would  enable  him  to  take  forth- 
with such  steps  as  may  be  necessary  for  this  defence,  and  to 
answer  by  telegraph  to  the  despatch  which  he  has  received. 

Brussels,  September  10,  1915. 

The  Chief  of  the  German  Political  Department 
could  not  ignore  the  American  Minister  at  Brussels  a 
second  time.  Baron  von  der  Lancken  was  compelled 
to  answer,  and  here  is  what  he  wrote  in  reply: 


THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL       399 

Political  Department 
of  the 

Governor-General  in  Belgium. 
I.  6940. 

Brussels,  September  12,  1915. 
SIR 

In  reply  to  your  Excellency's  note  of  the  31st  ultimo,  I  have 
the  honour  to  inform  you  that  Miss  Edith  Cavell  was  arrested  on 
the  5th  August,  and  that  she  is  at  present  in  the  Military  prison 
of  St.  Gilles. 

She  has  herself  admitted  that  she  concealed  in  her  house  French 
and  English  soldiers,  as  well  as  Belgians  of  military  age,  all  desirous 
of  proceeding  to  the  front.  She  has  also  admitted  having  furnished 
these  soldiers  with  the  money  necessary  for  their  journey  to  France, 
and  having  facilitated  their  departure  from  Belgium  by  providing 
them  with  guides,  who  enabled  them  to  cross  the  Dutch  frontier 
secretly. 

Miss  Cavell's  defence  is  in  the  hands  of  the  advocate  Braun, 
who,  I  may  add,  is  already  in  touch  with  the  competent  German 
authorities. 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Department  of  the  Governor- 
General  as  a  matter  of  principle  does  not  allow  accused  persons  to 
have  any  interviews  whatever,  I  much  regret  my  inability  to 
procure  for  M.  de  Leval  permission  to  visit  Miss  Cavell  as  long 
as  she  is  in  solitary  confinement.  I  avail,  etc., 

LANCKEN. 

This  was  written  on  September  12th,  more  than  five 
weeks  after  Miss  Ca veil's  imprisonment.  These  five 
weeks  of  precious  time,  during  which  they  had  staved 
off  any  intervention  on  her  behalf,  were  a  triumph  for 
the  German  authorities;  but  at  last  they  had  been  com- 
pelled to  show  their  hand.  They  had  announced  the 
offence  of  which  Miss  Cavell  was  accused,  and  revealed 
the  name  of  the  advocate  who  was  conducting  her  case. 

It  might  seem  a  strange  "principle"  of  the  Governor- 


400       THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 

General's  Department,  "not  to  allow  accused  persons 
to  have  any  interviews  whatever."  It  is  not  a  prin- 
ciple that  would  commend  itself  to  English  or  Ameri- 
can ideas  of  justice.  But  that  might  pass.  The  im- 
portant thing  was  that  the  American  Legation  had  now 
a  basis  on  which  to  act. 

IV.    M.  DE  LEVAL  TAKES  STEPS 

At  this  stage,  as  at  all  others,  the  American  officials 
acted  with  superb  zeal  and  promptitude.  M.  de  Leval, 
whose  name  is  referred  to  in  Mr.  Whitlock's  first  note 
and  Baron  von  der  Lancken's  final  reply,  is  a  Belgian 
advocate  retained  as  Legal  Counsellor  by  the  United 
States'  Legation  in  the  Belgian  capital;  and  in  a  report 
from  his  own  pen,  which  he  drew  up  for  Mr,  Whitlock 
after  the  whole  tragedy  was  over,  he  very  clearly  de- 
scribes the  successive  steps  he  took  in  the  case. 

As  he  might  not  see  Miss  Cavell,  M.  de  Leval  got 
into  touch  with  her  advocate,  M.  Braun.  At  his 
request  M.  Braun  came  to  call  on  him  at  the  Legation 
a  few  days  later.  It  appeared  that  he  was  a  member 
of  the  Brussels  Bar,  and  that  he  had  been  asked  by 
personal  friends  of  Miss  Cavell  to  defend  her  before 
the  German  Court;  "but  owing  (he  said)  to  some  un- 
foreseen circumstances  he  was  prevented  from  pleading 
before  that  Court."  This,  then,  was  the  outcome  of 
his  dealings  with  "the  competent  German  authorities." 
M.  de  Leval  had  wasted  his  time,  the  Political  Depart- 
ment had  gained  a  few  more  days.  But  perhaps  there 
was  more  behind  it  than  that.  M.  Braun  added  that 
"he  had  asked  M.  Kirschen,  a  member  (likewise)  of 
the  Brussels  Bar,  and  his  friend,  to  take  up  the  case 


THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL       401 

and  plead  for  Miss  Cavell,  and  that  M.  Kirschen 
had  agreed  to  do  so."  Now,  there  is  no  question  of 
M.  Braun's  personal  good  intentions  and  good  faith. 
He  had  been  asked  to  take  up  the  case  independently 
by  Edith  Ca veil's  friends,  and  had  independently 
undertaken  to  do  so.  But  when  we  come,  in  the  sequel, 
to  M.  Kirschen's  behaviour,  we  shall  find  ourselves 
passing  a  very  different  judgment  on  his  character — 
such  a  judgment,  in  fact,  as  to  make  us  speculate 
whether,  in  his  selection  of  M.  Kirschen,  M.  Braun 
was  equally  independent,  or  whether,  perchance,  his 
choice  of  a  successor  was  not  uninfluenced  by  "the 
competent  German  authorities." 

V.    THE  ADVOCATE  KIRSCHEN 

However,  that  was  more  than  M.  de  Leval  could 
foresee  at  the  moment.  Under  the  circumstances,  he 
took  the  only  possible  course,  and  proceeded  to  put 
himself  in  touch  with  M.  Kirschen,  who,  after  a  slight 
further  delay,  accorded  him  the  interview  for  which  he 
asked.  In  the  course  of  this  interview  M.  Kirschen 
told  M.  de  Leval  a  number  of  important  and  even 
remarkable  things,  which  deserve  to  be  reproduced 
here  as  carefully  as  M.  de  Leval  has  recorded  them  in 
his  official  report: 

(i.)  When  M.  de  Leval  asked  M.  Kirschen  whether  he  had  seen 
Miss,  Cavell,  and  whether  she  had  made  any  statement  to  him, 
M.  Kirschen  informed  him  that  the  lawyers  defending  prisoners 
before  the  German  Military  Court  were  not  allowed  to  see  their  clients 
before  the  trial,  and  were  not  sJiown  any  document  of  the  prosecution. 
This,  he  added,  was  in  accordance  with  the  German  military 
rules. 


402       THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 

(ii.)  He  declared  that  the  hearing  of  the  trial  of  such  case  was 
carried  out  very  carefully,  and  that,  in  his  opinion,  although  it 
was  not  possible  to  see  the  client  before  the  trial,  in  fact  the  trial 
itself  developed  so  carefully  and  so  slowly,  that  it  was  generally 
possible  to  have  a  fair  knowledge  of  all  the  facts  and  to  present  a 
good  defence  for  the  prisoner.  This  would  specially  be  the  case 
for  Miss  Cavell,  because  the  trial  would  be  rather  long,  as  she  was 
prosecuted  with  thirty-four  other  prisoners.  He  assured  M.  de 
Leval  over  and  over  again  that  the  Military  Court  at  Brussels 
was  always  perfectly  fair,  and  that  there  was  not  the  slightest 
danger  of  any  miscarriage  of  justice. 

(iii.)  On  learning  of  M.  de  LevaPs  intention  to  be  present  at 
the  trial,  so  as  to  watch  the  case,  M.  Kirschen  strongly  dissuaded 
him  from  doing  so.  Such  an  attitude,  he  said,  would  cause  a  great 
prejudice  to  the  prisoner,  because  the  German  judges  would 
resent  it  and  feel  it  almost  as  an  affront  if  M.  de  Leval  appeared 
to  exercise  a  kind  of  supervision  on  the  trial.  He  thought  that  if 
the  Germans  would  admit  M.  de  LevaPs  presence,  which  was  very 
doubtful,  it  would  in  any  cause  prejudice  to  Miss  Cavell. 

(iv.)  He  promised  that  he  would  keep  M.  de  Leval  posted  on  all 
the  developments  which  the  case  might  take,  and  would  report  to 
him  the  exact  charges  that  were  brought  against  Miss  Cavell, 
and  the  facts  concerning  her  that  would  be  disclosed  at  the  trial, 
so  as  to  allow  him  to  judge  for  himself  about  the  merits  of  the 
case. 

(v.)  He  insisted  that  he  would  do  all  that  was  humanly  possible 
to  defend  Miss  Cavell  to  the  best  of  his  ability. 

With  this,  M.  Kirschen  took  his  departure,  leaving 
things  very  much  where  they  were  before.  If  the 
prisoner's  own  advocate  was  legally  prohibited  from 
communicating  with  her  before  the  trial  began,  there 
was  clearly  nothing  to  be  done  meanwhile  by  her  friends 
at  the  American  Legation. 

So  darkness  descended  again  on  the  case  for  another 
three  weeks,  until,  on  Monday,  October  4th,  M. 


THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL       403 

Kirschen  duly  notified  M.  de  Leval  that  the  trial  was 
to  begin  on  the  following  Thursday,  October  7th. 
Upon  the  receipt  of  this  news,  M.  de  Leval  immediately 
wrote  M.  Kirschen  a  letter  "confirming  in  writing  in 
the  name  of  the  Legation  the  arrangement  that  had 
been  made  between  them  at  their  previous  interview." 
For  reasons  which  will  appear  later  on,  it  will  be  as 
well  to  reprint  this  letter  in  full: 

Brussels,  October  5,  1915. 
SIR, 

I  thank  you  for  the  letter  you  were  so  good  as  to  address  to  M. 
de  Leval,  in  which  you  informed  him  that  Miss  CavelPs  case 
would  come  before  the  court-martial  at  8  A.  M.  next  Thursday.  In 
pursuance  of  the  arrangement  already  come  to,  I  should  be  most 
grateful  if  you  will  be  so  good  as  to  send  me,  after  the  hearing,  a 
memorandum  setting  forth  the  acts  for  which  Miss  Cavell  is 
being  prosecuted,  and  stating  the  charges  which  are  brought 
against  her  at  the  hearing,  and  also  the  sentence  passed. 

I  am,  etc. 
(For  the  Minister), 

G.  DE  LEVAL, 
Legal  Adviser  to  the  Legation. 

This  letter  was  delivered  to  M.  Kirschen  by  a  mes- 
senger of  the  Legation,  and  M.  de  Leval  waited  anx- 
iously for  his  next  report. 

VI.    THE  TRIAL 

On  Thursday,  October  7th,  the  trial  of  Edith  Cavell 
and  her  fellow-prisoners  began.  It  was  nine  weeks 
since  her  first  arrest  and  imprisonment.  That  had 
been  on  August  5th,  and  all  this  time  she  had  been  re- 
tained (unconvicted  though  she  was)  in  solitary  con- 


404       THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 

finement,  cut  off  from  communion  with  her  friends 
and  from  all  intercourse  whatsoever  with  the  outside 
world.  Now  she  was  brought  before  the  Military 
Court  to  be  convicted — the  only  verdict  by  which  her 
judges  could  justify  the  conduct  of  her  gaolers. 

M.  de  Leval  was  not  present  at  the  trial — he  could 
hardly  have  gone  against  M.  Kirschen's  deliberately 
expressed  advice — but  he  has  embodied  in  his  report  a 
very  exact  account  of  the  proceedings,  which  he  after- 
ward obtained  from  some  one  who  had  taken  part  in 
them.  We  may  say  at  once  that  this  informant  was 
not  M.  Kirschen.  How  that  came  to  be  will  appear 
hereafter.  Meanwhile,  it  is  sufficient  to  indicate  the 
source  from  which  M.  de  Leval's  narrative  comes, 
and  we  may  draw  on  it  with  confidence  for  our  own 
information. 

Says  M.  de  Leval's  informant: 

Miss  Cavell  was  prosecuted  for  having  helped  English  and 
French  soldiers,  as  well  as  Belgian  young  men,  to  cross  the  fron- 
tier and  to  go  over  to  England.  She  had  admitted  by  signing  a 
statement  before  the  day  of  the  trial,  and  by  public  acknowledg- 
ment in  court,  in  the  presence  of  all  the  other  prisoners,  and  the 
lawyers,  that  she  was  guilty  of  the  charges  brought  against  her. 

The  penalty  fixed  for  these  actions  by  German  Military 
Law  is  death. 

Paragraph  58  of  the  German  Military  Code  says: 

Will  be  sentenced  to  death  for  treason  any  person  who,  with 
the  intention  of  helping  the  hostile  power,  or  of  causing  harm 
to  the  German  or  allied  troops,  is  guilty  of  one  of  the  crimes  of 
paragraph  90  of  the  German  Penal  Code 


THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL       405 

The  case  referred  to  in  above  said  paragraph  90 
consists  in: 


.  .  .  .  conducting  soldiers  to  the  enemy  ....  (viz.: 
dem  Feinde  Mannschaften  zujuhrt). 

The  penalties  above  set  forth  apply,  according  to  paragraph 
160  of  the  German  Code,  in  case  of  war,  to  foreigners  as  well  as 
to  Germans. 


Now,  Edith  Cavell  was  undoubtedly  aware  from  the 
beginning  of  the  extreme  penalty  she  was  incurring 
under  the  German  Military  Code.  She  did  not  suc- 
cour her  friends  and  compatriots  in  distress  because 
she  thought  she  could  do  so  with  impunity.  She 
succoured  them,  in  the  first  place,  from  pure  humanity 
—a  humanity  which  has  been  shown  by  women  through 
all  ages  to  fugitives  wounded  and  in  distress;  and,  in 
the  second  place,  because  she  thought  (as  she  de- 
clared in  court)  that  she  was  doing  her  unquestionable 
duty  to  her  country.  But  she  knew  all  the  while 
that  she  was  doing  it  at  the  risk  of  her  life;  and,  knowing 
this,  she  never  demeaned  herself  by  excusing  or  mini- 
mizing what  she  had  done,  but  willingly  responded  to 
her  inquisitors  by  an  admission  of  all,  and  more  than 
all,  their  charges. 

Edith  CavelPs  own  position  in  the  case  is  simple 
and  heroic.  The  position  of  the  German  authorities 
is  very  different  indeed. 

In  defending  their  conduct,  the  Germans  lay  great 
stress  on  the  fact  that  their  victim  had  done  what 
she  did  with  open  eyes.  Here,  for  instance,  is  a  quota- 
tion from  a  statement  vouchsafed  to  an  American 


406       THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 

journalist  by  Herr  Ziinmermann,  the  Imperial  German 
Under-Secretary-of-State  for  Foreign  Affairs : 

All  those  convicted  were  fully  cognizant  of  the  significance  of 
their  actions.  The  Court  went  into  just  this  point  with  particular 
care,  and  acquitted  several  co-defendants  because  it  believed  a 
doubt  existed  regarding  their  knowledge  of  the  penalties  of  their 
actions. 

That  might  conceivably  settle  the  issue  between 
the  executioners  and  the  dead,  but  it  cannot  absolve 
Germany  in  the  judgment  of  the  civilized  world.  What 
justifies  a  law?  Certainly  not  the  mere  drafting  of  it, 
or  its  publication  to  those  whom  it  may  concern. 
Otherwise,  the  vilest  law  would  possess  an  equal  sanc- 
tion with  the  best,  and  a  band  of  ruffians  with  brute 
force  at  their  command  could  foist  any  atrocity  as  law 
upon  the  world.  The  only  sanction  of  a  law  is  the  moral 
conviction  of  humanity  that  it  is  right,  and  paragraphs 
58  and  90  of  the  German  Military  Code  will  be  stripped 
of  their  legality  under  this  ordeal.  No  civilized  man 
or  woman  will  admit  for  a  moment  that  Edith  Cavell 
deserved  the  penalty  of  death  for  the  offence  she  had 
committed  against  the  German  Empire.  Herr  Zim- 
mermann  strains  his  hardest  to  prove  that  she  did.  He 
exaggerates,  he  prevaricates,  he  gravitates  into  open 
falsehood.  But  it  is  only  himself  and  his  country  that 
he  convicts: 

In  the  Cavell  case  (Herr  Zimmermann  pronounces)  we  are  in 
presence  of  a  well-thought-out,  world-wide  conspiracy  which 
succeeded  for  nine  months  in  rendering  the  most  valuable  service 
to  the  enemy  to  the  disadvantage  of  our  army. 


THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL       407 

Countless  British,  Belgian,  and  French  soldiers  are  now  again 
fighting  in  the  Allies'  ranks  who  owe  their  escape  from  Belgium  to 
the  activity  of  the  band  now  sentenced,  at  the  head  of  which  stood 
Miss  Cavell. 

"A  world-wide  conspiracy" — that  is  how  he  describes 
a  little  band  of  thirty-five  men  and  women  in  a  Belgian 
province.  "Countless  enemy  soldiers  enabled  to  es- 
cape"— that  is  a  round  number  for  the  few  dozen 
wounded  men  and  fugitives  who  were  actually  conveyed 
across  the  Dutch  frontier  by  the  good  offices  of  Miss 
Cavell  and  her  friends. 

With  such  a  situation  under  the  eyes  of  the  authorities  (he 
continues),  only  the  utmost  severity  can  bring  relief,  and  a  Gov- 
ernment violates  the  most  elementary  duty  toward  its  army  that 
does  not  adopt  the  strictest  measures.  These  duties  in  war  are 
greater  than  any  other. 

So  Miss  Cavell,  it  appears,  had  seriously  compro- 
mised the  safety  of  the  German  army!  These  few 
dozen  refugees — or  few  hundred,  or  few  thousand,  if 
Herr  Zimmermann  asks  for  the  benefit  of  the  number 
—were  gravely  altering  the  balance  of  forces  on  the 
western  front!  That  is  what  Herr  Zimmermann 
implies,  and  we  have  only  to  state  it  to  expose  its 
absurdity;  but,  after  all,  it  is  not  the  fundamental  ques- 
tion at  issue.  Who  were  these  Englishmen,  French- 
men, and  Belgians  in  the  case?  They  were  not  in- 
vaders, or  raiders,  or  spies.  They  were  men  wounded 
or  missing  from  armies  fighting  for  the  liberty  of  the 
country  in  which  they  found  themselves,  or  they  were 
citizens  of  that  country  seeking  an  opportunity  to  give 


408       THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 

her  their  service.  Their  hope  was  to  escape  from  the 
hand  of  the  enemy,  in  order  to  take  up  the  duty  to 
which  they  were  called;  and  the  alternative  that  faced 
them  was  terrible.  If  they  did  not  escape,  they  would 
either  be  shot  summarily  by  German  patrols  (Edith 
Cavell,  their  rescuer,  declared  this  at  her  trial,  and  her 
judges  did  not  contradict  her),  or  they  would  be 
doomed  to  the  lingering  torment  of  the  German  prison 
camps,  from  which  death,  again,  was  the  final  and  only 
relief.*  And  as  for  the  rescuers  themselves,  they  were 
no  more  intruders  than  those  they  rescued,  nor  on 
ground  where  they  had  no  right  to  be.  Most  of  them 
were  natives  and  citizens  of  Belgium,  while  Edith 
Cavell — the  "head  of  the  conspiracy,"  as  Herr  Zim- 
mermann  prefers  to  call  her — had  come  to  Belgium, 
on  the  invitation  of  the  Belgians  themselves,  to  carry 
out  a  work  of  public  beneficence,  on  which  she  had 
already  been  engaged  for  more  than  eight  years.  And 
the  acts  for  which  they  were  now  arraigned  were  like- 
wise acts  of  mercy,  which  women,  at  any  rate  (and 
many  of  the  "band"  were  women,  besides  their  "head") 
have  never  refused  to  perform  on  behalf  of  fellow- 
creatures  in  distress,  and  which  have  never  among 
civilized  men  been  reckoned  against  them  as  a  crime. 

These  were  the  people  against  whom  the  German 
administration  was  obliged  to  "adopt  the  strictest 
measures,"  for  fear  of  "violating  the  most  elementary 
duty  toward  its  army/'  Herr  Zimmermann's  phrases 
are  so  complacent  and  so  officially  correct,  that  it 
needs  an  effort  to  remind  ourselves  what  that  army 

*For  the  treatment  of  prisoners  of  war  in  Germany,  see  the  British  White  Paper 
Miscellaneous  No.  12  (1915)  [Cd.  7862J. 


THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL       409 

actually  was.  It  was  the  German  army  which  had 
invaded  without  provocation  a  country  whose  inviol- 
ability the  German  Government  had  solemnly  guar- 
anteed. It  was  the  army  which  had  treated  the  help- 
less and  innocent  population  among  whom  it  came 
as  no  invaded  people  for  centuries  had  been  treated 
by  European  soldiers — the  army  that  plundered  and 
burnt  and  slaughtered  and  ravished.  The  German 
army,  it  is  to  be  supposed,  had  committed  itself  to  its 
career  of  "frightfulness"  in  Belgium  in  order  not  to 
fail  in  its  duty  toward  the  German  Government;  and 
now  the  Government  was  inflicting  the  same  frightful- 
ness  on  Miss  Cavell  in  order  to  carry  out  its  duty  to 
the  Army.  The  German  army  and  the  German  Gov- 
ernment have  indeed  proved  not  unworthy  of  one 
another. 

No  consideration  whatsoever  was  allowed,  in  Edith 
Cavell's  case,  to  weigh  in  the  balance  against  this 
German  principle.  Herr  Zimmermann,  of  course, 
repudiates  emphatically  the  consideration  of  sex.  It 
is  enough  for  him  that  "no  law  book  in  the  world,  least 
of  all  those  dealing  with  war  regulations,  makes  any 
such  differentiation."  But  even  if  Edith  Cavell  had 
been  a  spy,  even  if  she  had  been  a  male  spy  and  not  a 
woman,  there  were  further  circumstances  in  the  case 
which  Herr  Zimmermann  leaves  discreetly  out  of  ac- 
count, but  which  will  weigh  more  strongly  with  the 
rest  of  the  world. 

It  is  not  an  unimportant  point  that,  even  under 
the  German  Military  Law  by  which  she  was  tried, 
Edith  Cavell  was  only  rendered  amenable  to  the  death 
penalty  by  evidence  which  she  volunteered  of  her 


410       THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 

own  accord,  and  which  no  one  else  could  have  obtained 
against  her.     M.  de  Leval's  informant  told  him  that: 

She  had  acknowledged  not  only  that  she  had  helped  these 
soldiers  to  cross  the  frontier,  but  also  that  some  of  them  had 
thanked  her  in  writing  when  arriving  in  England.  This  last 
admission  made  her  case  so  much  the  more  serious,  because  if  it 
only  had  been  proved  against  her  that  she  had  helped  the  soldiers 
to  traverse  the  Dutch  frontier,  and  no  proof  was  produced  that 
these  soldiers  had  reached  a  country  at  war  with  Germany,  she 
could  only  have  been  sentenced  for  an  attempt  to  commit  the 
"crime,"  and  not  for  the  "crime"  being  duly  accomplished. 

That  was  one  point  in  the  case,  but  there  is  another 
which  would  have  appealed  still  more  directly  to  any 
judge  whose  human  instincts  had  not  been  warped  by 
German  Military  Law.  Edith  Cavell  was  an  English 
patriot,  but  first  and  foremost  she  was  a  nurse,  inflexibly 
constant  to  the  high  ideals  of  her  calling.  If  part  of 
her  efforts  had  been  given,  during  those  nine  months, 
to  assisting  her  convalescent  patients  to  escape,  her 
daily  labours  were  spent,  as  they  always  had  been, 
on  the  unconditional  service  of  the  sick.  She  had  not 
only  succoured  the  English,  French,  and  Belgian 
wounded  that  came  under  her  care;  she  had  nursed 
Germans  as  well — nursed  them  back  to  life  that  they 
might  fight  again  for  their  own  country,  with  just  the 
same  devotion  as  she  displayed  to  those  others  whom 
she  was  sending  home  to  fight  for  a  cause  which  was 
hers  as  well  as  theirs. 

That  service  to  their  wounded  comrades  should  have 
made  Edith  Cavell's  life  sacred  in  the  eyes  of  the  Ger- 
man officers  who  condemned  her  to  death.  It  should 


THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL       411 

have  reprieved  her  even  if  she  had  been  a  spy,  or  if  the 
German  people  and  the  German  Under-Secretary  for 
Foreign  Affairs  had  been  more  sincerely  convinced 
than  they  were  that  the  infinitely  less  serious  offence 
which  she  had  committed  was  justly  punishable  by 
the  penalty  assigned  to  it  under  German-made  Military 
Law.  Her  execution,  under  whatever  code,  was  an 
outrage  to  humanity,  and  the  voice  of  humanity  speaks 
in  the  following  sentences  of  Sir  Edward  Grey* : 

Sir  Edward  Grey  is  confident  that  the  news  of  the  execution  of 
this  noble  Englishwoman  will  be  received  with  horror  and  disgust, 
not  only  in  the  Allied  States,  but  throughout  the  civilized  world. 
Miss  Cavell  was  not  even  charged  with  espionage,  and  the  fact 
that  she  had  nursed  numbers  of  wounded  German  soldiers  might 
have  been  regarded  as  a  complete  reason  in  itself  for  treating  her 
with  leniency. 

But  the  German  authorities  were  not  governed  by 
such  considerations.  Their  thought  was  not  of  justice, 
but  of  results. 

Once  for  all  (states  Herr  Zimmermann),  the  activity  of  our 
enemies  has  been  stopped,  and  the  sentence  has  been  carried  out 
to  frighten  those  who  may  presume  on  their  sex  to  take  part  in  enter- 
prises punishable  with  death. 

Those  words  have  a  familiar  sound,  and  they  admit 
the  uttermost  of  the  charge  they  were  intended  to 
rebut.  It  is  the  old,  futile,  abominable  policy  of 
"Frightfulness"  once  more,  and  Edith  Cavell  is  its 
latest  victim. 

*Quoted  from  his  letter  addressed  to  Mr.  Page,  the  United  States'  Ambassador 
in  London,  after  the  perpetration  of  the  deed. 


412       THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 

From  the  beginning  there  was  no  doubt  about  the 
intentions  of  the  Military  Court.  Their  purpose  is 
written  large  in  the  narrative  of  the  trial  which  M. 
de  Leval  had  from  his  informant,  and  which  he  incor- 
porated in  his  own  report. 

In  her  oral  statement  before  the  Court,  Miss  Cavell  disclosed 
almost  all  the  facts  of  the  whole  prosecution.  She  was  questioned 
in  German,  an  interpreter  translating  all  the  questions  in  French, 
with  which  language  Miss  Cavell  was  well  acquainted.  She  spoke 
without  trembling  and  showed  a  clear  mind.  Often  she  added 
some  greater  precision  to  her  previous  depositions. 

When  she  was  asked  why  she  helped  these  soldiers  to  go  to 
England,  she  replied  that  she  thought  that  if  she  had  not  done  so 
they  would  have  been  shot  by  the  Germans,  and  that  therefore 
she  thought  she  only  did  her  duty  to  her  country  in  saving  their 
lives. 

The  Military  Public  Prosecutor  said  that  argument  might  be 
good  for  English  soldiers,  but  did  not  apply  to  Belgian  young  men 
whom  she  induced  to  cross  the  frontier,  and  who  would  have  been 
perfectly  free  to  remain  in  the  country  without  danger  to  their 
lives. 

M.  Kirschen  made  a  very  good  plea  for  Miss  Cavell,  using  all 
arguments  that  could  be  brought  in  her  favour  before  the  Court. 

We  may  note  in  passing  that  the  "competent  Ger- 
man authorities"  could  take  no  umbrage  at  M.  Kirsch- 
en's  fine  speeches.  They  lent  the  proceedings  a  savour 
of  free  debate,  and  they  were  not  likely  to  prejudice 
the  military  judges.  At  any  rate,  the  prosecutor  was 
not  embarrassed  by  them,  as  the  sequel  of  the  narrative 
shows: 

The  Military  Public  Prosecutor,  however,  asked  the  Court  to  pass 
a  death  sentence  on  Miss  Cavell  and  eight  other  prisoners  amongst 


THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL       413 

the  thirty-five.  The  Court  did  not  seem  to  agree,  and  the  judg- 
ment was  postponed.  The  person  informing  me  said  he  thought 
that  the  Court  would  not  go  to  the  extreme  limit. 

These  were  the  first  impressions  of  a  looker-on,  and 
we  cannot  help  marvelling  at  the  artistic  solemnity 
with  which  the  sinister  show  was  played  through. 

vii.  KIRSCHEN'S  SILENCE  AND  CONRAD'S  ASSURANCE 

The  Court  rose  on  Friday,  October  8th,  one  day  after 
its  sitting  had  begun.  Meanwhile,  M.  de  Leval  was 
waiting  for  M.  Kirschen 's  next  communication.  He 
did  not  expect  to  hear  that  the  Court  had  risen — M. 
Kirschen  had  himself  assured  him  that  "the  hearing 
would  be  carried  out  very  carefully  and  the  trial  would 
be  rather  long" — but  he  was  hoping  for  a  report  from 
the  prisoner's  advocate  of  the  first  phases  in  the  de- 
fence. His  astonishment  was  therefore  considerable 
when  he  was  informed  by  an  outsider*  that  "the  trial 
had  taken  place,  though  no  judgment  would  be  reached 
till  a  few  days  later."  This  was  on  Saturday,  October 
9th,  and  not  a  word  from  M.  Kirschen  had  been  re- 
ceived. 

Receiving  no  report  from  M.  Kirschen,  continues  M.  de  Leval, 
I  tried  to  find  him,  but  failed.  I  then  sent  him  a  note  on  Sunday, 
asking  him  to  send  his  report  to  the  Legation  or  call  there  on  Mon- 
day morning  at  8.30. 

.  .  .  On  Monday  morning  I  was  very  much  surprised  still 
to  receive  no  news  from  M.  Kirschen,  and  I  called  at  his  house  at 
12.30;  but  I  was  informed  that  he  would  not  be  there  till  about 


*Not  to  be  confused  with  the  eye-witness  who  afterward  furnished  him  with 
the  narrative  of  the  trial. 


414       THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 

the  end  of  the  afternoon.  I  then  called,  at  12.40,  at  the  house  of 
another  lawyer  interested  in  the  case  of  a  fellow-prisoner,  and 
found  that  he  also  was  out.  In  the  afternoon,  however,  the 
latter  lawyer  called  at  my  house,  saying  that  in  the  morning  he  had 
•heard  from  the  German  Kommandatur  that  judgment  would 
be  passed  only  the  next  morning — viz.,  Tuesday  morning.  He 
said  that  he  feared  that  the  Court  would  be  very  severe  for  all 
the  prisoners. 

Shortly  after,  this  lawyer  left  me.     .     .     . 

And  that  is  the  last  that  has  been  heard  of  M. 
Kirschen.  Doubtless  he  has  had  his  reward,  for  his 
utility  to  the  "competent  German  authorities"  has 
been  inestimable.  From  Thursday,  October  7th,  to 
the  afternoon  of  Monday,  October  llth — the  most 
critical  days  in  their  operations  against  Edith  Cavell 
—he  had  stood  between  them  and  her  friends  at  the 
American  Legation. 

He  had  not  shielded  them  completely,  however, 
owing  to  the  perseverance  of  M.  de  Leval.  On  Sun- 
day evening,  the  narrative  of  the  trial  which  we  have 
quoted  above  was  communicated  to  M.  de  Leval  by  a 
private  person  who  had  been  a  witness  of  the  pro- 
ceedings; and  on  receipt  of  this  information,  M.  de 
Leval  did  not  wait  to  hear  the  last  of  M.  Kirschen 
before  addressing  himself  directly  to  the  German 
Governor-General's  Political  Department.  It  will  be 
better  to  give  his  account  of  what  followed  in  his  own 
words : 

After  I  had  found  out  these  facts  (viz.,  Sunday  evening),  I 
called  at  the  Political  Division  of  the  German  Government  in 
Belgium  and  asked  whether,  now  that  the  trial  had  taken  place, 
permission  would  be  granted  to  me  to  see  Miss  Cavell  in  jail,  as 


THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL       415 

surely  there  was  no  longer  any  object  in  refusing  that  permission. 
The  German  official,  Mr.  Conrad,  said  he  would  make  the  necessary 
enquiry  at  the  Court  and  let  me  know  later  on. 

I  also  asked  him  that  permission  be  granted  to  Mr.  Gahan, 
the  English  clergyman,  to  see  Miss  Cavell. 

At  the  same  time  we  prepared  at  the  Legation,  to  be  ready  for 
every  eventuality,  a  petition  for  pardon,  addressed  to  the  Governor- 
General  in  Belgium,  and  a  transmitting  note  addressed  to  Baron 
von  der  Lancken. 

Monday  morning,  at  11, 1  called  up  Mr.  Conrad  on  the  telephone 
from  the  Legation  (as  I  already  had  done  previously  on  several 
occasions  when  making  enquiries  about  the  case),  asking  what 
the  Military  Court  had  decided  about  Mr.  Gahan  and  myself 
seeing  Miss  Cavell.  He  replied  that  Mr.  Gahan  could  not  see 
her,  but  that  she  could  see  any  of  the  three  Protestant  clergymen* 
attached  to  the  prison;  and  that  I  could  not  see  her  till  the  judg- 
ment was  pronounced  and  signed,  but  that  this  would  probably 
only  take  place  in  a  day  or  two.  /  asked  the  German  official  to 
inform  the  Legation  immediately  after  the  passing  of  said  judgment, 
so  that  I  might  see  Miss  Cavell  at  once,  thinking,  of  course,  that 
the  Legation  might,  according  to  your  intentions,!  take  immediate 
steps  for  Miss  CavelPs  pardon  if  the  judgment  really  was  a  sentence 
of  death. 

This,  then,  was  the  situation  as  it  revealed  itself  to 
the  American  Legation  on  Monday  morning.  The 
Prosecutor  had  asked  for  a  sentence  of  death,  and  the 
Court  was  still  in  council.  It  might  issue  a  death 
sentence  at  any  moment,  but  it  had  not  done  so  yet, 
and  there  was  a  presumption  that  it  would  not  do  so 
for  at  least  another  day.  This  had  been  the  impression 
of  M.  de  Leval's  two  private  informants,  it  had  been 
the  opinion  of  the  advocate  acting  for  one  of  Edith 
Cavell's  co-defendants,  and  it  had  been  endorsed  by 

*Presumably  of  German  nationality. 

fM.  de  Leval's  Report  is  addressed  to  Mr.  Whitlock. 


416       THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 

no  less  competent  a  German  authority  than  Herr 
Conrad  himself. 

Again,  there  was  nothing  to  do  but  to  keep  vigilant 
watch  upon  the  march  of  events,  and  the  American 
Legation  performed  their  part  once  more  with  unfailing 
zeal  and  constancy. 

At  11  o'clock  on  Monday  morning  "Herr  Conrad 
gave  positive  assurances  that  the  Legation  would  be  fully 
informed  as  to  developments  in  this  case." 

That  is,  word  for  word,  the  categorical  statement  of 
Mr.  Gibson,  Secretary  of  the  United  States'  Legation 
at  Brussels,  in  the  report  which  he  drew  up  for  the 
Minister,  Mr.  Whitlock,  on  the  following  day.  But 
Edith  Cavell's  friends  at  the  Legation  did  not  rest 
content  with  that. 

Despite  these  assurances  (Mr.  Gibson  continues),  we  made 
repeated  enquiries  in  the  course  of  the  day,  the  last  one  being  at 
6.40  P.  M.  Belgian  time.  Mr.  Conrad  then  stated  that  sentence 
had  not  yet  been  pronounced,  and  specifically  renewed  his  pre- 
vious assurances  that  he  would  not  fail  to  inform  us  as  soon  as  there 
was  any  news. 

This  was  at  6.20  p.  M.  and  further  enquiries  and 
assurances  would  doubtless  have  been  exchanged  in 
the  course  of  the  evening,  had  not  the  process  been 
cut  short  by  a  sudden  blow. 

While  (M.  de  Leval  reports)  I  was  preparing  a  note  about  the 
case,  at  8  p.  M.  I  was  privately  and  reliably  informed  that  the 
judgment  had  been  delivered  at  5  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  that 
Miss  Cavell  had  been  sentenced  to  death,  and  that  she  would  be  shot 
at  2  o'clock  the  next  morning.  I  told  my  informer  that  I  was  ex- 
tremely surprised  at  this,  because  the  Legation  had  received  no 


THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL       417 

information  yet,  neither  from  the  German  authorities  nor  from 
Mr.  Kirschen,  but  that  the  matter  was  too  serious  to  run  the 
smallest  chance,  and  that  therefore  I  would  proceed  immediately 
to  the  Legation  to  confer  with  your  Excellency  and  take  all 
possible  steps  to  save  Miss  Cavell's  life. 

The  death  sentence  had  been  signed  at  5  p.  M.  An 
hour  and  twenty  minutes  after  its  signature,  Herr 
Conrad  had  once  more  assured  the  American  Legation 
that  nothing  had  happened  and  all  was  well.  The 
Legation  had  learned  the  truth  at  8  o'clock,  and  still 
no  intimation  of  it  had  been  conveyed  to  them  by  the 
competent  German  authorities.  The  German  author- 
ities never  informed  them  of  the  truth,  until  they 
were  taxed  with  it  by  emissaries  from  the  Legation 
itself. 

At  this  point  we  may  pause  a  moment  to  enumerate 
the  chain  of  prevarications  and  subterfuges  by  which 
the  German  officials  cheated  Edith  Cavell's  legitimate 
friends  and  protectors  at  the  American  Legation  of 
their  unimpeachable  right  to  supervise  her  case. 

When  Mr.  Whitlock  made  his  first  enquiry  at  the 
Political  Department,  on  August  31st,  Baron  von  der 
Lancken  delayed  his  answer  for  twelve  days,  and  then 
only  vouchsafed  it  under  pressure  of  a  second  and 
more  urgent  request.  When  Miss  Cavell's  friends 
appointed  an  advocate  to  conduct  her  case,  the  man 
of  their  choice,  after  getting  into  touch  with  the  com- 
petent German  authorities,  was  compelled,  "owing 
to  some  unforeseen  circumstances,"  to  transfer  his 
brief  to  a  more  receptive  colleague.  The  impression 
was  created  that  the  trial  would  be  lengthy;  it  lasted 
two  days.  When  the  Court  so  abruptly  rose,  the 


418       THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 

further  impression  was  created  that  the  pronounce- 
ment of  the  sentence  would  be  some  time  deferred;  it 
was  delivered  within  seventy-two  hours.  Six  hours 
before  its  delivery  a  high  official  in  the  Political  De- 
partment gave  the  American  Legation  "positive  assur- 
ances" that  he  would  acquaint  them  immediately  that 
event  occurred.  Neither  he  nor  his  colleagues  ever 
gave  them  the  least  indication  of  it,  and  even  when 
taxed  with  it  cast  doubt  upon  its  truth,  as  will  appear 
shortly  hereafter. 

We  may  sum  up  this  charge  by  remarking  that  the 
German  authorities  only  informed  the  American  Lega- 
tion, from  beginning  to  end,  of  one  positive  fact — the 
name  of  Edith  Cavell's  first,  and  already  superseded, 
advocate.  And  the  advocate  substituted  in  M.  Braun's 
place  only  gave  them  knowledge  of  one  single  fact 
more — the  date  on  which  the  trial  was  to  begin.  All 
the  important  facts — the  fact  that  the  Court  had 
risen;  the  narrative  of  what  had  taken  place  before 
it  rose,  including  the  supremely  important  fact  that 
the  death  penalty  had  been  demanded;  and  the  final 
fact  that  this  sentence  had  already  been  pronounced— 
these  were  all  communicated  to  the  American  Legation 
by  private  informants.  They  were  the  vital  facts  in 
the  case,  the  facts  which  it  was  essential  for  them  to 
know  if  they  were  to  take  effective  action,  and  they 
learned  them,  not  from  the  German  authorities  and  not 
from  Edith  CavelPs  semi-official  defender,  but  by  chance 
alone,  and  at  the  eleventh  hour. 

This  is  how  it  is  put  by  Sir  Edward  Grey:* 

*In  the  letter  (already  quoted)  which  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Page  after  the  Germans 
had  carried  the  case  of  Edith  Cavell  to  its  designed  conclusion. 


THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL       419 

The  attitude  of  the  German  authorities  is,  if  possible,  rendered 
worse  by  the  discreditable  efforts  successfully  made  by  the  officials 
of  the  German  civil  administration  at  Brussels  to  conceal  the  fact 
that  sentence  had  been  passed  and  would  be  carried  out  immedi- 
ately. These  efforts  were  no  doubt  prompted  by  the  deter- 
mination to  carry  out  the  sentence  before  an  appeal  from  the 
finding  of  the  court-martial  could  be  made  to  a  higher  authority, 
and  show  in  the  clearest  manner  that  the  German  authorities 
concerned  were  well  aware  that  the  carrying  out  of  the  sentence 
was  not  warranted  by  any  consideration. 

In  these  words  he  is  merely  expressing  the  feelings  of 
the  civilized  world. 

Further  comment  on  these  proceedings  (he  adds)  would  be 
superfluous. 

VIII.    MONDAY    NIGHT — THE    "POLITICAL   DEPARTMENT" 

It  was  the  eleventh  hour,  yet  the  American  Legation 
had  no  thought  of  abandoning  the  struggle.  In  view 
of  this  very  eventuality  they  had  drawn  up  the  day 
before,  with  admirable  foresight,  two  "pleas  for  mercy" 
(requetes  en  grace),  of  identical  purport,  but  addressed 
respectively  to  Baron  von  der  Lancken,  the  Chief 
of  the  Political  Department,  and  to  Baron  von  Bissing, 
the  Governor-General  of  the  Occupied  Territory. 
This  appeal  sets  forth  so  cogently  the  considerations 
in  Edith  Cavell's  favour  that  we  reproduce  it  here  as  it 
stands : 

Brussels,  October  11,  1915. 
YOUR  EXCELLENCY, 

I  have  just  heard  that  Miss  Cavell,  a  British  subject,  and  con- 
sequently under  the  protection  of  my  Legation,  was  this  morning 
condemned  to  death  by  court-martial. 


420       THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 

If  my  informant  is  correct,  the  sentence  in  the  present  case  is 
more  severe  than  all  the  others  that  have  been  passed  in  similar 
cases  which  have  been  tried  by  the  same  court,  and,  without  going 
into  the  reasons  for  such  a  drastic  sentence,  I  feel  that  I  have  the 
right  to  appeal  to  your  Excellency's  feelings  of  humanity  and 
generosity  in  Miss  Cavell's  favour,  and  to  ask  that  the  death 
penalty  passed  on  Miss  Cavell  may  be  commuted  and  that  this 
unfortunate  woman  shall  not  be  executed. 

Miss  Cavell  is  the  head  of  the  Brussels  Surgical  Institute. 
She  has  spent  her  life  in  alleviating  the  sufferings  of  others,  and 
her  school  has  turned  out  many  nurses  who  have  watched  at  the 
bedside  of  the  sick  all  the  world  over,  in  Germany  as  in  Belgium. 
At  the  beginning  of  the  war  Miss  Cavell  bestowed  her  care  as 
freely  on  the  German  soldiers  as  on  others.  Even  in  default  of 
all  other  reasons,  her  career  as  a  servant  of  humanity  is  such  as  to 
inspire  the  greatest  sympathy  and  to  call  for  pardon.  If  the 
information  in  my  possession  is  correct,  Miss  Cavell,  far  from 
shielding  herself,  has,  with  commendable  straightforwardness, 
admitted  the  truth  of  all  the  charges  against  her,  and  it  is  the  very 
information  which  she  herself  has  furnished,  and  which  she  alone 
was  in  a  position  to  furnish,  which  has  aggravated  the  severity 
of  the  sentence  passed  on  her. 

It  is  then  with  confidence,  and  in  the  hope  of  its  favourable 
reception,  that  I  have  the  honour  to  present  to  your  Excellency 
my  request  for  pardon  on  Miss  CavelPs  behalf.* 
I  avail,  &c., 

BRAND  WHITLOCK. 

The  one  thing  now  to  be  done  was  to  present  this 
appeal  at  the  earliest  possible  moment,  and  to  rein- 
force it  by  personal  representations  of  as  weighty  and 
as  urgent  a  kind  as  possible.  The  American  Minister, 

This  is  the  text  of  the  appeal  to  the  Governor-General.  In  the  otherwise 
identical  appeal  to  Baron  von  der  Lancken  the  last  paragraph  runs: 

"It  is  then  with  confidence,  and  in  the  hope  of  its  favourable  reception,  that 
I  beg  your  Excellencv  to  submit  to  the  Governor-General  my  request  for  pardon 
on  Miss  Cavell's  behalf." 


THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL       421 

Mr.  Whitlock,  himself  was  unfortunately  ill  and  con- 
fined to  his  bed.  Yet  he  would  not  spare  himself  in 
his  efforts  on  Edith  Cavell's  behalf.  With  his  own 
hand  he  wrote  a  note  of  personal  intercession,  which 
poignantly  proves,  if  further  proof  were  needed,  how 
whole-hearted  he  was  in  his  struggle  for  Edith  CavelPs 
life. 

MY  DEAR  BARON, 

I  am  too  ill  to  present  my  request  to  you  in  person,  but  I  appeal 
to  the  generosity  of  your  heart  to  support  it  and  save  this  unfor- 
tunate woman  from  death.  Have  pity  on  her ! 

Yours  sincerely, 

BRAND  WHITLOCK. 

This  final  appeal,  as  well  as  the  more  formal  pleas 
for  mercy  that  had  been  previously  prepared,  was 
taken  charge  of  by  Mr.  Gibson,  the  Secretary  of  the 
Legation,  and  Mr.  Whitlock's  colleague  and  sub- 
ordinate. Accompanied  by  M.  de  Leval,  Mr.  Gibson 
proceeded  on  his  mission,  and  we  shall  quote  what 
followed  from  his  own  official  report.* 

At  8.30  it  was  learned  from  an  outside  source  that  sentence  had 
been  passed  in  the  course  of  the  afternoon  (before  the  last  con- 
versation with  Mr.  Conrad),  and  that  the  execution  would  take 
place  during  the  night.  In  conformity  with  your  instructions, 
I  went  (accompanied  by  M.  de  Leval)  to  look  for  the  Spanish 
Minister,  and  found  him  dining  at  the  home  of  Baron  Lambert. 
I  explained  the  circumstances  to  his  Excellency  and  asked  that 
(as  you  were  ill  and  unable  to  go  yourself)  he  go  with  us  to  see 
Baron  von  der  Lancken  and  support  as  strongly  as  possible  the 
plea,  which  I  was  to  make  in  your  name,  that  execution  of  the 


*Drawn  up  and  dated  the  following  day — Tuesday,  October  12th.      It  is  ad- 
dressed to  Mr.  Whitlock. 


THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 

death  penalty  should  be  deferred  until  the  Governor  could  con- 
sider your  appeal  for  clemency. 

We  took  with  us  a  note  addressed  to  Baron  von  der  Lancken, 
and  a  plea  for  clemency  (requite  en  grace)  addressed  to  the  Governor- 
General.  The  Spanish  Minister  willingly  agreed  to  accompany 
us,  and  we  went  together  to  the  Politische  Abteilung. 

Baron  von  der  Lancken  and  all  the  members  of  his  staff  were 
absent  for  the  evening.  We  sent  a  messenger  to  ask  that  he  return 
at  once  to  see  us  in  regard  to  a  matter  of  utmost  urgency.  A 
little  after  10  o'clock  he  arrived,  followed  shortly  after  by  Count 
Harrach  and  Herr  von  Falkenhausen,  members  of  his  staff.  The 
circumstances  of  the  case  were  explained  to  him  and  your  note 
presented,  and  he  read  it  aloud  in  our  presence.  He  expressed 
disbelief  in  the  report  that  sentence  had  actually  been  passed, 
and  manifested  some  surprise  that  we  should  give  credence  to 
any  report  not  emanating  from  official  sources.  He  was  quite 
insistent  on  knowing  the  exact  source  of  our  information,  but  this 
I  did  not  feel  at  liberty  to  communicate  to  him.  Baron  von 
der  Lancken  stated  that  it  was  quite  probable  that  sentence  had 
been  pronounced,  that  even  if  so,  it  would  not  be  executed  within 
so  short  a  time,  and  that  in  any  event  it  would  be  quite  impossible 
to  take  any  action  before  morning.  It  was,  of  course,  pointed 
out  to  him  that  if  the  facts  were  as  we  believed  them  to  be,  action 
would  be  useless  unless  taken  at  once.  We  urged  him  to  ascer- 
tain the  facts  immediately,  and  this,  after  some  hesitancy,  he 
agreed  to  do.  He  telephoned  to  the  presiding  judge  of  the  court- 
martial  and  returned  in  a  short  time  to  say  that  the  facts  were 
as  we  had  represented  them,  and  that  it  was  intended  to  carry 
out  the  sentence  before  morning.  We  then  presented,  as  earnestly 
as  possible,  your  plea  for  delay.  So  far  as  I  am  able  to  judge,  we 
neglected  to  present  no  phase  of  the  matter  which  might  have 
had  any  effect,  emphasizing  the  horror  of  executing  a  woman,  no 
matter  what  her  offence,  pointing  out  that  the  death  sentence 
had  heretofore  been  imposed  only  for  actual  cases  of  espionage, 
and  that  Miss  Cavell  was  not  even  accused  by  the  German  au- 
thorities of  anything  so  serious.  I  further  called  attention  to 
the  failure  to  comply  with  Mr.  Conrad's  promise  to  inform  the 


THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL       423 

Legation  of  the  sentence.  I  urged  that  inasmuch  as  the  offences 
charged  against  Miss  Cavell  were  long  since  accomplished,  and 
that  as  she  had  been  for  some  weeks  in  prison,  a  delay  in  carrying 
out  the  sentence  could  entail  no  danger  to  the  German  cause. 
I  even  went  so  far  as  to  point  out  the  fearful  effect  of  a  summary 
execution  of  this  sort  upon  public  opinion,  both  here  and  abroad, 
and,  although  I  had  no  authority  for  doing  so,  called  attention  to 
the  possibility  that  it  might  bring  about  reprisals. 

The  Spanish  Minister  forcibly  supported  all  our  representations 
and  made  an  earnest  plea  for  clemency. 

Baron  von  der  Lancken  stated  that  the  Military  Governor  was 
the  supreme  authority  (Gerichtsherr)  in  matters  of  this  sort;  that 
appeal  from  his  decision  could  be  carried  only  to  the  Emperor, 
the  Governor-General  having  no  authority  to  intervene  in  such 
cases.  He  added  that  under  the  provisions  of  German  Martial 
Law  the  Military  Governor  had  discretionary  power  to  accept  or 
to  refuse  acceptance  of  an  appeal  for  clemency.  After  some  dis- 
cussion he  agreed  to  call  the  Military  Governor  on  to  the  tele- 
phone and  learn  whether  he  had  already  ratified  the  sentence, 
and  whether  there  was  any  chance  for  clemency.  He  returned 
in  about  half  an  hour,  and  stated  that  he  had  been  to  confer  per- 
sonally with  the  Military  Governor,  who  said  that  he  had  acted 
in  the  case  of  Miss  Cavell  only  after  mature  deliberation;  that  the 
circumstances  in  her  case  were  of  such  a  character  that  he  con- 
sidered the  infliction  of  the  death  penalty  imperative;  and  that  in 
view  of  the  circumstances  of  this  case  he  must  decline  to  accept 
your  plea  for  clemency  or  any  representation  in  regard  to  the 
matter. 

Baron  von  der  Lancken  then  asked  me  to  take  back  the  note 
which  I  had  presented  to  him.  To  this  I  demurred,  pointing  out 
that  it  was  not  a  requite  en  grdce  but  merely  a  note  to  him  trans- 
mitting a  communication  to  the  Governor,  which  was  itself  to  be 
considered  as  the  requeue  en  grdce.  I  pointed  out  that  this  was 
expressly  stated  in  your  note  to  him,  and  tried  to  prevail  upon 
him  to  keep  it;  he  was  very  insistent,  however,  and  I  finally  reached 
the  conclusion  that  inasmuch  as  he  had  read  it  aloud  to  us,  and  we 
knew  that  he  was  aware  of  its  contents,  there  was  nothing  to  be 


424        THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 

gained  by  refusing  to  accept  the  note  and  accordingly  took  it 
back. 

Even  after  Baron  von  der  Lancken's  very  positive  and  definite 
statement  that  there  was  no  hope,  and  that  under  the  circumstances 
"even  the  Emperor  himself  could  not  intervene,"  we  continued  to 
appeal  to  every  sentiment  to  secure  delay,  and  the  Spanish  Min- 
ister even  led  Baron  von  der  Lancken  aside  in  order  to  say  very 
forcibly  a  number  of  things  which  he  would  have  felt  hesitancy  in 
saying  in  the  presence  of  the  younger  officers  and  of  Mr.  de  Leval, 
a  Belgian  subject. 

His  Excellency  talked  very  earnestly  with  Baron  von  der 
Lancken  for  about  a  quarter  of  an  hour.  During  this  time  M. 
de  Leval  and  I  presented  to  the  younger  officers  every  argument 
we  could  think  of.  I  reminded  them  of  our  untiring  efforts  on 
behalf  of  German  subjects  at  the  outbreak  of  war  and  during  the 
siege  of  Antwerp.  I  pointed  out  that,  while  our  services  had  been 
rendered  gladly  and  without  any  thought  of  future  favours,  they 
should  certainly  entitle  you  to  some  consideration  for  the  only 
request  of  this  sort  you  had  made  since  the  beginning  of  the 
war.  Unfortunately,  our  efforts  were  unavailing.  We  persevered 
until  it  was  only  too  clear  that  there  was  no  hope  of  securing  any 
consideration  for  the  case. 

We  left  the  Politische  AUeilung  shortly  after  midnight,  and  I 
immediately  returned  to  the  Legation  to  report  to  you. 

HUGH  GIBSON. 


IX.    MONDAY    NIGHT — THE    PRISON    OF    ST.     GILLES 

That  is  what  happened  at  the  Political  Department 
of  the  German  Administration  in  Brussels  on  the  even- 
ing of  Monday,  October  llth.  Meanwhile,  a  very 
different  interview  was  taking  place  in  the  Military 
Prison  of  St.  Gilles,  where  Mr.  Gahan,  the  British  chap- 
lain in  the  Belgian  capital,  had  been  admitted  at 
last  to  visit  Edith  Cavell  at  10  o'clock,  five  hours  after 


THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL       425 

the  sentence  had  been  passed  and  four  hours  before 
it  was  put  into  execution.* 

On  Monday  evening,  the  llth  October  (Mr.  Gahan  writes), 
I  was  admitted  by  special  passport  from  the  German  authorities 
to  the  prison  of  St.  Gilles,  where  Miss  Edith  Cavell  had  been  con- 
fined for  ten  weeks.  The  final  sentence  had  been  given  early 
that  afternoon. 

To  my  astonishment  and  relief  I  found  my  friend  perfectly 
calm  and  resigned.  But  this  could  not  lessen  the  tenderness  and 
intensity  of  feeling  on  either  part  during  that  last  interview  of 
almost  an  hour. 

Her  first  words  to  me  were  upon  a  matter  concerning  herself 
personally,  but  the  solemn  asseveration  which  accompanied  them 
was  made  expressedly  in  the  light  of  God  and  eternity.  She 
then  added  that  she  wished  all  her  friends  to  know  that  she  will- 
ingly gave  her  life  for  her  country,  and  said:  "I  have  no  fear  nor 
shrinking;  I  have  seen  death  so  often  that  it  is  not  strange  or 
fearful  to  me.  .  .  ." 

She  further  said:  "I  thank  God  for  this  ten  weeks'  quiet  before 
the  end.  .  .  . 

"Life  has  always  been  hurried  and  full  of  difficulty.     .     .     . 

"This  time  of  rest  has  been  a  great  mercy.     .     .     . 

"They  have  all  been  very  kind  to  me  here.  But  this  I  would 
say,  standing  as  I  do  in  view  of  God  and  eternity,  I  realize  that 
patriotism  is  not  enough.  I  must  have  no  hatred  or  bitterness 
toward  any  one." 

We  partook  of  the  Holy  Communion  together,  and  she  received 
the  Gospel  message  of  consolation  with  all  her  heart.  At  the 
close  of  the  little  service  I  began  to  repeat  the  words  "Abide  with 
me,"  and  she  joined  softly  in  the  end. 

We  sat  quietly  talking  until  it  was  time  for  me  to  go.  She  gave 
me  parting  messages  for  relations  and  friends.  She  spoke  of  her 


*Mr.  Gahan  describes  his  last  interview  with  Edith  Cavell  in  a  report  which  he 
drew  up  a  few  days  later  at  Mr.  Whitlock's  request,  and  from  which  we  quote 
what  follows. 


426       THE  DEATH  OF  EDITH  CAVELL 

soul's  needs  at  the  moment  and  she  received  the  assurance  of 
God's  Word  as  only  the  Christian  can  do. 

Then  I  said,  "Good-bye,"  and  she  smiled  and  said,  "We  shall 
meet  again." 


The  rest  is  silence.  All  we  know  is  the  testimony  of 
the  German  military  chaplain  who  was  with  her  at 
the  end.* 

She  was  brave  and  bright  to  the  last.     She  professed  her  Chris- 
tian faith,  and  that  she  was  glad  to  die  for  her  country.     .     .     . 
She  died  like  a  heroine.     .     .     . 

Beati  mortui  qui  in  Domino  moriuntur,  ut  requiescant 
a  laboribus  suis;  opera  enim  illorum  sequuntur  illos. 

*Communicated  to  Mr.  Gahan,  and  included  in  the  latter's  report. 


XX 
THE  SOUL  OF  FRANCE 

By  MAURICE  BARRES 

Membre  de  I'AauUmie  franfaite 


XX 

THE  SOUL  OF  FRANCE 

THE  rain  was  falling  as  I  reached  the  ruins  of 
Gerbeviller-le-Martyr  in  the  evening,  to  seek 
out  the  nuns  mentioned  by  General  de  Castel- 
nau  in  his  despatches. 

"  You  want  to  see  Sister  Julie?  You  can't  go  wrong. 
It  is  the  only  house  still  standing  on  your  right  as  you 
go  up." 

The  only  house!  There  it  was;  a  house  of  no  par- 
ticular character,  neither  the  house  of  a  peasant,  nor 
that  of  a  bourgeois,  but  with  some  traits  of  each.  The 
dining  room,  where  I  waited  a  few  minutes,  was  orna- 
mented with  a  cheap  and  tawdry  hanging  lamp.  The 
lack  of  refinement  and  distinction  attracted  me.  I 
was  about  to  see  in  the  commonplace  surroundings 
of  a  narrow  life  a  soul  ennobled  by  circumstance. 

But  here  comes  Madame  Julie  Rigarel,  in  religion 
Sister  Julie,  whom  the  General  eulogized,  whom  the 
prefet  came  to  embrace,  and  on  whom  the  sous-prefet 
temporarily  conferred  all  the  rights  of  the  Mayoralty. 

"Sister,  the  President  of  the  League  of  Patriots 
salutes  you  with  the  greatest  respect." 

I  explained  to  the  noble  woman  that  I  was  travelling 
through  Lorraine  to  enquire  into  the  outrages  com- 
mitted by  the  Germans,  and  hear  of  the  virtues  of  my 
compatriots. 


430  THE  SOUL  OF  FRANCE 

I  could  not  see  her  features  very  distinctly  in  the 
dim  light  shed  by  the  small  petroleum  lamp  overhead. 
I  could  only  make  out  that  she  was  a  rather  robust 
and  capable-looking  woman;  she  talked  quickly,  with  a 
pronounced  accent,  and  looked  a  typical  religieuse  or 
bourgeoise  of  our  small  provincial  towns,  but  had  re- 
mained homelier,  and  her  face  beamed  with  kindness. 

"But  what  have  I  done  that  people  should  take  so 
much  notice  of  me?  The  sisters  of  St.  Charles  are 
nursing  sisters:  I  could  not  have  done  anything  else." 

The  sisters  of  St.  Charles  are  the  Lorraine  congrega- 
tion par  excellence9  an  old  foundation  of  our  duchy. 
Their  letters  patent  of  the  seventeenth  century  laid 
on  them  the  mission  of  praying  for  the  preservation 
and  prosperity  of  the  House  of  Lorraine.  They  have 
now  done  good  service  to  the  honour  of  the  Lorraine 
people. 

"Very  well,  sister,  nothing  you  have  done  was  extraor- 
dinary for  a  sister  of  St.  Charles.  But  you  must  have 
seen  some  extraordinary  things." 

"Yes,  indeed.  The  great  rifle-fire  and  the  bombard- 
ment lasted  from  nine  in  the  morning  till  nine  at  night 
on  August  24th.  During  the  night  of  the  23d-24th, 
they  sent  us  some  of  the  little  Alpine  Chasseurs  to 
hold  the  way.  About  fifty,  and  they  were  so  young — 
mere  boy$.  They  fought.  Bombs  and  bullets  were 
showered  upon  us.  The  Mayor  said  to  them:  'Boys, 
you  can  do  nothing,  there  are  too  many  of  them.  And 
you  will  expose  the  village  to  their  vengeance.'  They 
answered  gently:  'The  General  told  us  to  hold  out  to 
the  last.'  And  they  did  hold  out  till  the  evening, 
when  the  German  infantry  reached  the  middle  of  the 


THE  SOUL  OF  FRANCE  431 

town.  Then  they  managed  to  creep  away  along  the 
ground  and  over  the  walls  of  the  cemetery  without 
being  seen  by  the  Germans.  The  enemy  accordingly 
took  their  revenge  on  the  civil  population.  They 
entered  every  house,  striking  the  inhabitants  and 
driving  them  before  them.  An  officer  came  to  my 
house  with  his  soldiers.  He  came  up  to  the  place 
where  I  had  my  wounded.  The  poor  fellows  were 
trembling.  I  put  myself  between  them  and  him  and 
said:  ( Don't  touch  them,  they  are  wounded.'  He 
went  to  every  bed  and  tore  the  blankets  off  to  see  the 
dressings.  He  had  a  revolver  in  one  hand  and  a  dagger 
in  the  other.  Sometimes  I  followed  him  and  sometimes 
went  in  front  of  him.  How  bold  I  was!  I  wonder  at 
myself  now.  How  could  I  have  dared?  .  .  .  But 
then  I  did  not  know  that  they  were  killing  and  tor- 
turing women  and  children  in  the  village." 

She  told  me  various  things  about  the  crimes  of  vio- 
lence committed  by  the  Germans,  and  suddenly,  as  if 
terrified  by  the  images  she  had  evoked,  she  cried: 

"Do  you  think  they  will  come  back?  Oh!  I  am 
so  frightened!" 

I  was  deeply  touched  by  this  exclamation.  It  re- 
vealed human  nature  beneath  the  heroism  of  the  nun. 

"They  spared  you  and  your  nuns,  sister?" 

"I  nursed  their  wounded  as  well  as  our  own.  It 
is  my  duty  as  a  sister  of  St.  Charles.  I  have  a  right  to 
prefer  ours,  but  I  nursed  the  others  equally.  Now,  on 
August  25th,  we  had  258  wounded  Prussians  and  no 
one  to  tend  them." 

"Where  are  your  doctors?"  I  asked. 

"They  have  forsaken  us.     We  dressed  their  wounds, 


432  THE  SOUL  OF  FRANCE 

but  we  had  no  expert  knowledge.  There  was  one  who 
had  two  fingers  hanging  from  his  hand.  I  cut  them 
off  with  my  scissors.  It  was  at  Roselieures  especially 
that  they  had  been  battered  by  our  '75'  guns.  Some 
had  no  calves,  some  no  cheeks,  some  no  ribs." 

"Did  they  complain  much?" 

"No.  They  just  said :  *  How  it  burns !'  They  entered 
Gerbeviller  on  the  evening  of  August  24th,  as  I  told 
you.  Well,  on  the  28th,  at  5  o'clock,  the  French  re- 
turned. You  know  what  a  struggle  there  was,  and 
how  it  lasted  incessantly  till  September  13th,  at  8 
o'clock  in  the  evening.  The  battle  was  always  going 
on,  the  artillery  duel,  and  especially  the  machine  guns, 
which  our  people  call  the  'coffee  mill.' ' 

The  sister  gave  me  a  mass  of  information,  but  I 
preferred  to  impress  on  my  memory  only  what  would 
throw  light  on  her  own  personality.  I  did  not  want  to 
hear  of  the  sufferings  of  Gerbeviller  from  her:  I  had 
seen  the  ruins;  nor  did  I  ask  for  a  description  of  the 
battle.  That  must  take  its  place  in  the  general  story 
of  the  operations.  I  had  come  to  see  her,  to  see  a 
person  who,  all  unconsciously,  possessed  heroic  powers, 
and  whose  generous  soul  leapt  into  life  when  the  hour 
struck. 

"Our  priest,"  she  said,  "had  been  carried  off  by 
the  Germans.  The  church  was  on  fire.  Then  it  sud- 
denly occurred  to  me  that  the  ciborium  was  in  danger. 
I  ran  and  fetched  it  from  the  tabernacle.  I  brought  it 
here,  and,  kneeling  down,  I  administered  the  sacra- 
ment to  myself." 

Here,  in  this  room,  under  the  gilded  hanging  lamp! 
This  scene  explained  Sister  Julie  to  me:  an  excellent 


THE  SOUL  OF  FRANCE  433 

nature,  divinely  moulded.  I  recognized  in  her  a 
countrywoman  full  of  loving  kindness  and  practical 
sense,  but  deeply  imbued  with  mystical  feeling. 

While  we  were  talking  other  sisters,  hospital  orderlies, 
officers,  soldiers,  maimed  men,  refugees,  among  them 
some  children,  and  a  few  of  the  poor  inhabitants  who 
had  returned  to  the  ruins,  entered  the  room,  one  after 
another.  They  told  me  that  they  had  now  completed 
the  work  of  burying  the  dead  who  had  been  killed  in 
the  battle,  and  that  to-morrow  morning  an  open-air 
Mass  would  be  said  for  them,  in  the  midst  of  the  graves. 
They  asked  if  I  would  be  present  and  speak.  Sister 
Julie  was  insistent,  but  I  declined  the  honour,  not, 
indeed,  because  I  wanted  to  spare  myself  a  little  effort 
on  behalf  of  fellow-creatures  who  had  given  their  lives, 
but  because  I  felt  myself  unworthy  of  so  great  a  part, 
which  seemed  to  me  to  belong  to  priests  and  soldiers 
—to  those  who  had  suffered. 

'You  would  have  given  pleasure  to  all  of  us/' 

This  phrase  of  Sister  Julie's  haunts  me  in  the  dark- 
ness after  I  have  returned  to  the  carriage  which  takes 
us  once  more  through  the  ruins  on  our  way  back  to 
Luneville.  I  think  of  the  service  she  has  rendered  us 
by  manifesting  the  moral  generosity  of  our  nation  in 
the  midst  of  the  German  horrors.  She  makes  one 
understand  the  cry  of  the  sacred  orator:  "The  hands 
that  are  raised  to  heaven  destroy  more  battalions  than 
the  hands  armed  with  pike  and  lance."  This  nun 
tending  the  murderers  themselves  on  the  scene  of  their 
murders — she,  the  daughter  and  the  sister  of  their 
victims — makes  a  very  different  impression  at  Gerbe- 
viller  from  that  made  by  the  Drunkards  in  the  Charnel- 


434  THE  SOUL  OF  FRANCE 

house  at  Roan!  Let  us  hope  that  this  radiant  soul  of 
French  womanhood  may  be  seen  among  the  ruins  of 
her  town  by  the  Americans  and  other  neutrals  who 
hesitate  between  France  and  Germany.  Why  had  I 
opposed  my  scruples  to  her  expressed  desire?  She  had 
arranged  a  beautiful  rite;  she  imagined  that  my  titles, 
such  as  they  are,  would  add  some  lustre  to  it.  I 
cannot  but  obey  her.  Back  to  Gerbeviller!  I  go 
back  and  say  to  her: 

"Sister,  be  it  as  you  wish.  I  am  going  to  sleep  at 
Luneville,  but  I  will  return  to-morrow  punctually  at 
9  o'clock,  to  be  present  at  the  Mass  on  the  plateau, 
between  Gerbeviller  and  Moyen." 

4th  November,  1914. 

THE    MASS    ON    THE    GRAVES    OF    VICTORY 

Next  morning  I  returned  from  Luneville  to  Gerbe- 
viller and  a  little  beyond,  to  Moyen.  It  had  been  rain- 
ing all  night,  the  ground  was  a  quagmire;  it  was  cold, 
and  at  intervals  the  wind  brought  the  dull  roar  of 
cannon  to  our  ears.  On  the  undulations  of  the  plateau 
that  we  followed  above  La  Mortagne,  not  a  tree  was 
left  standing,  but  trunks,  shaved  off  about  a  yard 
above  the  ground,  bore  witness  to  the  fury  of  a  battle 
that  had  lasted  twenty  days.  The  last  corpses  had 
been  buried,  and  I  was  hastening  to  be  present  at  a 
Mass  over  their  graves. 

Near  Moyen  I  noticed  to  the  right  of  the  road,  in  the 
fields,  a  small  crowd,  to  which  silent  groups  were  mak- 
ing their  way  from  every  side. 

I  left  the  carriage  and  went  toward  this  assembly 
on  foot.  A  party  of  officers  came  forward  to  meet 


THE  SOUL  OF  FRANCE  435 

me.  We  shook  hands  as  they  introduced  themselves. 
Then  we  were  silent.  What  was  the  use  of  speech? 
The  mounds  of  earth  around  us  adequately  expressed 
our  thoughts. 

A  peasant  approached  me,  saying:  "I  am  the  Mayor 

of  X I  owned  five  houses.  Not  a  stone  of 

any  one  of  them  has  been  left  standing,  and  the  coat  I 
am  wearing  was  lent  me  by  a  friend  at  Luneville." 

"M.  le  Maire,  it  is  the  duty  of  France  to  clothe, 
shelter,  and  feed  you." 

He  showed  me  a  tragic  group  of  old  men,  women,  and 
children  from  the  ruined  villages  who  had  come  to 
join  this  gathering  of  soldiers,  and  pray  for  their  de- 
fenders. I  repeated  these  words  to  them.  Then  I 
went  and  stood  in  the  midst  of  the  officers  and  doctors, 
beside  Sister  Julie,  the  angel  of  the  ruins,  who  had  put 
on  her  spectacles  and  was  bending  over  her  prayer 
book. 

We  were  at  the  principal  cemetery  of  the  battlefields 
of  La  Mortagne,  where  a  service  was  about  to  be  held 
for  the  dead  whose  graves  lay  thick  as  far  as  eye  could 
reach,  from  St.  Die  to  beyond  Luneville. 

Imagine  the  scene :  some  hundreds  of  soldiers  grouped 
round  a  mound  thirty  yards  long,  decked  with  flags, 
humble  wreaths,  and  piles  of  arms.  At  the  head  of 
this  funeral  mound  were  two  groups,  one  of  ruined 
peasants,  the  other  of  officers  and  nuns  surrounding 
an  altar  to  which  a  priest  ascended.  He  genuflected, 
and  disclosed  a  pair  of  red  trousers  beneath  his  vest- 
ments. 

The  soldier-priest!  Amazing  figure,  which  reappears 
at  long  intervals  in  the  history  of  France:  the  bishop 


436  THE  SOUL  OF  FRANCE 

of  the  chansons  de  gestes,  the  warrior-monk  of  the 
Crusades,  the  parish  priest  of  1914,  a  man  who  com- 
bines two  mysteries,  and  who  has  a  double  power  to 
touch  our  hearts.  All  heads  are  uncovered,  all  faces 
are  tight-set.  And,  as  he  begins  the  office,  each  listener 
gives  himself  up  to  the  musings  of  his  soul.  We  go 
back  to  the  great  pure  and  primitive  ages  of  our  race. 
Falsehood  flies,  and  rites  are  once  more  able  to  uplift 
the  soul  to  God.  The  cannon  roars  in  the  distance; 
the  mournful  bells  of  our  ruined  villages  toll.  And 
when,  at  the  supreme  moment,  the  soldier-priest  lifts 
the  chalice  above  the  battlefield,  one  seems  to  hear  the 
beating  of  hearts  deeply  stirred. 

You  were  there,  you  girls  of  Moyen,  the  three  sisters 
Hasse,  who  on  September  4,  1914,  wrote  from  your 
hearts  the  following  sublime  letter  to  your  brother:— 

MY  DEAR  EDOUARD, 

We  have  just  heard  that  Charles  and  Lucien  were  killed  on 
August  28th;  Eugene  is  seriously  wounded.  Louis  and  Jean  are 
dead,  too.  Rose  has  disappeared.  Mother  weeps;  she  says  you 
are  strong,  and  wants  you  to  go  and  avenge  them.  I  hope  your 
chiefs  will  consent.  Jean  had  got  the  Legion  of  Honour;  you 
must  be  his  successor. 

They  have  taken  our  all.  Out  of  eleven  who  were  fighting 
eight  are  dead.  My  dear  brother,  do  your  duty,  that  is  all  we  ask. 
God  gave  you  life;  he  has  the  right  to  take  it  again.  Our  mother 
sends  you  this  message. 

We  send  you  our  dearest  love,  though  we  should  like  very 
much  to  see  you  first.  The  Prussians  are  here.  Jandon's  son  is 
dead.  They  have  stolen  everything.  I  have  just  come  back 
from  Gerbeviller,  which  is  destroyed.  The  cowards! 

Go,  my  dear  brother,  offer  the  sacrifice  of  your  life.  We  hope 
to  see  you  again,  for  a  kind  of  presentiment  bids  us  hope.  We 


THE  SOUL  OF  FRANCE  437 

send  you  our  fond  love.     Good-bye,  and  may  we  meet  again,  if 
it  be  God's  will. 

Your  sisters: 
BERTHE  HASSE. 

It  is  for  us  and  for  France.  Think  of  your  brothers,  and  of 
our  grandfather  in  1870. 

You,  too,  were  there,  Madame  G.,  peasantwoman  of 
Moneel,  who  sent  these  burning  words  to  your  husband : 

MY  DEAR  HENRI, 

The  Germans  have  been  here  harassing  us  for  the  last  three  weeks. 
I  am  going  to  tell  you  the  truth,  for  I  cannot  keep  it  to  myself  any 
longer.  But  you  must  be  brave,  as  I  have  been.  .  .  . 

You  need  not  worry  yourself  any  more  about  the  family,  for 
you  have  no  one  left  but  me.  You  know  that  I  have  had  courage. 
Courage  gives  strength;  and  this  is  why  you  must  have  courage, 
to  avenge  our  two  children  and  our  poor  family.  You  must  take 
courage  to  crush  them  all  and  prevent  them  from  coming  into  our 
country  again,  for,  if  it  were  allowed,  I  would  myself  take  a  rifle 
and  try  to  kill  one  or  two  of  them.  You  can  show  this  letter  to 
your  comrades,  so  that  all  French  soldiers  may  try  to  avenge 
us.  ...  Do  not  worry  about  me,  for  I  have  no  children 
now.  .  .  .  What  do  I  want  you  to  do?  Send  them  plenty 
of  bullets,  crush  them  all,  for  they  are  not  worthy  to  see  the  light. 

Women  of  the  invaded  districts,  such  were  your 
admirable  and  terrible  words  when  the  inferior  race 
undertook  to  break  the  bones  of  our  race,  and  beside 
you,  more  perfect  still,  we  see  Sister  Julie  and  her 
nuns,  your  kinswomen,  who  preserved  soldiers  for 
France  and  aroused  the  admiration  of  the  whole  world. 
It  is  the  attribute  of  woman  to  feel  and  translate  the 
forces  of  the  blood.  It  is  only  when  we  perceive 
its  deep  currents  that  we  appreciate  the  shadowy  origin 


438  THE  SOUL  OF  FRANCE 

of  the  sublime.  As  I  stood  on  the  plateau,  throughout 
this  solemn  ceremony,  in  the  midst  of  this  motion- 
less assembly,  and  in  its  eternal  sentiments  of  love, 
hatred,  desolation,  courage  and  religion,  I  seemed  to 
touch  the  eternal  substance,  the  very  soul  of  the  land. 
.  .  .  The  Mass  was  finished.  Now  it  was  my  turn 
to  speak.  They  made  me  get  up  on  the  funeral  mound. 
I  was  to  be  their  voice,  the  voice  of  the  ruined  villages, 
of  the  terrified  spaces.  But  what  poet  would  be  worthy 
to  touch  the  keys  of  the  organ  in  this  open-air  cathedral, 
and  to  voice  the  lament  of  this  countryside!  I  will  be 
content  to  proclaim  the  message  of  victory  to  the  four 
quarters  of  the  field  of  battle  in  the  simplest  and  most 
rapid  words: 

"  Our  brothers  have  died,  and  they  lie  in  these  mounds ; 
our  houses  are  shattered  and  burned,  and  our  fellow- 
citizens  have  been  shot  or  taken  away  into  captivity. 
But  you  have  not  suffered  in  vain,  and  your  terrible 
sacrifices  have  ensured  the  salvation  of  France. 

"The  Battle  of  Sarrebourg,  on  August  24th,  had  been 
a  disaster  for  us.  For  four  days,  the  Germans  advanced 
without  a  check.  They  thought  they  would  advance 
in  this  fashion  to  Bayon  and  Charmes,  and  cross  the 
Moselle.  Their  pride  was  their  undoing.  On  the  24th 
they  debouched,  with  bands  playing,  at  the  village  of 
Xermamesnil,  five  kilometres  from  there.  But  they 
were  greeted  by  a  terrible  salvo  from  a  French  battery 
emplaced  at  the  abbey  farm  of  Belchamp.  This 
magnificent  task  was  carried  out  at  a  noble  but  decayed 
spot  of  old  Lorraine,  and  the  ancient  glory  of  Belchamp 
was  revived,  while  the  Germans  yelled  with  pain  under 
the  death-dealing  shrapnel.  And  at  the  same  time, 


THE  SOUL  OF  FRANCE  489 

on  the  same  line,  they  were  held  up  till  evening  by 
fifty-one  Alpine  Chasseurs,  under  the  command  of 
Adjudant  Chevre,  who  was  mentioned  in  despatches. 
These  two  bold  strokes  which  arrested  the  debouch- 
ment of  two  whole  army  corps  for  an  entire  day,  en- 
abled our  troops  to  get  into  position  for  the  attack. 
This  was  the  reason  of  the  German  fury  in  our  vil- 
lages. If  they  could  have  crossed  La  Mortagne  and 
then  forced  the  Moselle  and  the  Gap  of  Charmes, 
Joffre's  operations  would  have  been  hopelessly  com- 
promised, and  his  armies  cut  in  two.  But  for  twenty- 
one  days  the  two  armies  of  Castelnau  and  Dubail  held 
their  ground  in  our  hapless  but  now  glorious  villages, 
and  on  September  llth  the  enemy  suddenly  decamped 
between  seven  and  eight  o'clock  in  the  evening,  on 
learning  the  results  of  the  Battle  of  the  Marne,  which 
had  been  made  possible  only  by  your  sufferings  and 
your  tenacity." 

Such  were  the  words  with  which  I  extolled  to  my 
peasant  and  soldier  audience  the  immediate  results 
of  their  sacrifices.  I  might  have  added  more;  other 
fruits  will  ripen  in  the  centuries  to  come  on  the  qaystic 
tree  of  which  our  dead  were  the  willing  roots;  but  mere 
words  cannot  express  what  still  remained  to  be  said. 
Enough  that  our  souls  are  ever  conscious  of  the  presence 
in  the  skies  above  Xermamesnil  and  Gerbeviller  and 
in  the  clouds  that  hover  above  the  Bois  de  la  Chipotte, 
of  our  fallen  heroes,  who  will  watch  over  us  in  Lorraine. 

Indeed  the  radiance  that  they  have  shed  has  trans- 
figured the  people  of  Lorraine,  even  in  the  midst  of  the 
horrors  of  the  war.  The  horror  is  still  with  us,  but 
calm  has  fallen  upon  our  troubled  and  distraught  spirits. 


440  THE  SOUL  OF  FRANCE 

Happy  the  people  amongst  whom  these  dead  have 
chosen  to  live!     Happy  the  skies  which  will  forever 
see  their  outspread  wings  as  they  watch  over  and  in- 
spire their  comrades  on  earth ! 
9th  November,  1914. 


DVJUH11N 

v  j V*  \n  000] 

Obverse  Side  Lusitania  Medal 


Reverse  Side  Lusitania  Medal 

[See  Page  441} 


XXI 
A  GERMAN  NAVAL  VICTORY 

"With  joyful  pride  we  contemplate  this  latest  deed  of  our 
navy.     .     .     ."—Kolnische  Volkszeitung,  10th  May,  1915. 

This  medal  has  been  struck  in  Germany  with  the 
object  of  keeping  alive  in  German  hearts  the  recollec- 
tion of  the  glorious  achievement  of  the  German  navy 
in  deliberately  destroying  an  unarmed  passenger  ship, 
together  with  1,198  non-combatants,  men,  women, 
and  children. 

On  the  obverse,  under  the  legend  "No  contraband" 
(Keine  Bannware),  there  is  a  representation  of  the 
Lusitania  sinking.  The  designer  has  put  in  guns  and 
aeroplanes,  which  (as  was  certified  by  United  States' 
Government  officials  after  inspection)  the  Lusitania  did 
not  carry;  but  has  conveniently  omitted  to  put  in  the 
women  and  children,  which  the  world  knows  she  did  carry. 

On  the  reverse,  under  the  legend  "Business  above 
all"  (Geschaft  uber  alles),  the  figure  of  Death  sits  at 
the  booking-office  of  the  Cunard  Line  and  gives  out 
tickets  to  passengers,  who  refuse  to  attend  to  the  warn- 
ing against  submarines  given  by  a  German.  This 
picture  seeks  apparently  to  propound  the  theory  that 
if  a  murderer  warns  his  victim  of  his  intention,  the 
guilt  of  the  crime  will  rest  with  the  victim,  not  with 
the  murderer. 

441 


THE  COUNTRY  LITE  PRESS 
GARDEN  CITY,  N.  Y. 


Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  t  ^ 


50m-7,'16 


ru 


359430 


L 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


